Class Struggle Returns: Who Belongs Where in Modern Society?

Summary

The podcast "Lanz & Precht" discusses the renaissance of the class question in Western societies. Prompted by David Betz, a Canadian professor who warns of an impending civil war, hosts Markus Lanz and Richard David Precht analyze the book "Class" by Hanno Sauer. They argue that the prosperity promise is collapsing and the middle-class society—long a guarantor of stability—is solidifying into a new hourglass society with enormous conflict potential. The distinction between "Anywheres" (mobile, global) and "Somewheres" (regionally bound) further sharpens social tensions.

People

• Markus Lanz
• Richard David Precht
• David Betz
• Hanno Sauer
• Helmut Schelsky
• Friedrich Merz
• Gerhard Schröder

Topics

• Class question and class struggle in modern societies
• Prosperity promise and upward mobility
• Leveled middle-class society vs. hourglass society
• Social distinction and status symbols
• Wealth inequality and inheritance tax
• Globalization winners and losers

Detailed Summary

The Return of the Class Question

The discussion begins with David Betz, who has seriously analyzed the possibility of civil war in France within a few years. While such scenarios in the USA with over 400 million firearms in circulation seem understandable, Precht was surprised by the thesis that Europe is also at risk. Betz identifies several prerequisites for societal violence: distrust of elites, polarization, and lack of recognition of competence. However, he highlights a decisive factor: the prosperity promise that no longer functions and the lack of upward mobility opportunities.

This leads directly to Hanno Sauer's work "Class," which illustrates the return of old sociological questions. While racism and feminism recede as societal priorities, the class question pushes itself back to the fore—a phenomenon that had been marginalized in the Federal Republic for decades.

The Dissolved Working Class

Precht explains that the classic proletariat no longer exists as a revolutionary force. Traditional industrial workers have long moved up into the middle class. Today's "left behind"—transfer recipients, undocumented migrants—form neither a closed class nor revolutionary potential. Nevertheless, real class problems are actually intensifying: The unequal distribution is potentiated by inheritance, and the general prosperity promise is eroding.

From Onion to Hourglass

Helmut Schelsky, an influential Münster sociologist from 1956, coined the concept of the "leveled middle-class society." He described a society in which people continuously rise from the lower class into the middle class—an onion-shaped form with a thick middle rather than classic hourglass structure. This upward mobility promise was the foundation for decades of stability and—under Helmut Kohl and Gerhard Schröder—was carried forward.

But this promise is collapsing. Prosperity is stagnating or declining, inequality is growing, and the onion is becoming an hourglass again. This has explosive potential: hourglass societies harbor revolutionary forces because societal groups no longer meet and no longer does the middle—traditionally a stabilizer—hold the system together.

Anywheres vs. Somewheres

A central concept is the distinction between two types of people: Anywheres are globally mobile, can live anywhere with capital, and say "if I don't like it here, I'll go to Dubai." Somewheres are regionally bound, cannot escape, and increasingly feel like globalization losers. This divergence creates massive centrifugal forces: While Somewheres resort to homeland nationalism (particularly in the East, increasingly in the West), Anywheres demand maximum liberality and global trade.

Middle-Class Values Under Pressure

Friedrich Merz described in 2018 the societal middle not as a purely economic quantity, but as a value orientation: diligence, discipline, decency, respect, and giving back to society. But Lanz adds critically: this only works if society enables development.

For many people—particularly young people—the traditional upward mobility promise has become obsolete. They do not experience the slow, tedious ascent of their parents as aspirational, but instead orient themselves toward rapid success models (Instagram aesthetics, influencer careers). This is not morally reprehensible, but a reaction to changed conditions: young people are aware of the brevity of life and do not want to sacrifice decades for prosperity if that prosperity is uncertain anyway.

Capitalism in All Niches

Precht diagnoses that capitalism is no longer merely an economic system but has infiltrated all aspects of life. People continuously optimize: How do I maximize fun, meaning, joy? This is not the society of the 1950s-60s—it is something entirely different.

The result: The "dream of the middle class" (stable ascent) is replaced by the dream of quick millions. Values such as patience, persistent work, inner satisfaction through achievement—these disappear from the broad society. Instead, the "lottery mentality" dominates: If I'm clever enough, I'll find my niche and success will come quickly.

Sauer's Biological Justification—Critically Examined

Hanno Sauer justifies class differences through evolutionary biology: humans are "deficient beings" who depend on learning ability for years. This creates pressure to learn from the "best"—which naturally leads to hierarchies and classes. Precht rigorously rejects this argument.

He criticizes Sauer's reference to Zahavi's "handicap theory" (peacock feathers as a signal of good genes): that is biologically false. Female peacocks do not choose based on plumage size; in many bird species, females are interested in strategic intelligence (see ruff sandpipers), not fighting ability. Even among chimpanzees, females do not automatically choose the alpha male—there are preferences for intelligent, young males.

Core of the criticism: Sauer universalizes from evolutionary tendencies to necessary biological requirements of class societies. This is a tautology: "Class differences are natural, so we must accept them." This undermines the foundation of progressive reform efforts.

Precht emphasizes: there are historically and globally cultures with significantly less extreme class differences. Sauer's one-sided argument is a justification of existing inequality, not an explanation.

Social Distinction: From Louis Vuitton to Quiet Luxury

Sauer describes four classes through status signals using a Louis Vuitton bag as an example:

• Lower class: Cannot participate, uses no status signals
• Middle class: Buys Louis Vuitton to distinguish itself from below
• Upper middle class: Louis Vuitton is too common; distinguishes itself through non-wearing (counter-signal)
• Upper class: Uses only insider-known signals ("Quiet Luxury")

This model shows how class societies reproduce themselves through distinction. Historical example: Lobster was prison food for the poor in the 19th century, became rare and expensive through overfishing—and has been a status symbol ever since.

Wealth Inequality: The Real Problem

A decisive point: Germany taxes labor very highly (income tax, social contributions) but wealth lowly. The problem is not income but diverging fortunes—amplified by inheritances.

Germany inherits an estimated 300-400 billion euros annually but collects only about 15 billion in inheritance tax (the tax is considered a "sucker tax" since wealthy families circumvent it through structures). The SPD plans a reform with graduated payment for business assets—to not endanger medium-sized enterprises.

The core argument against higher inheritance tax ("That's already taxed money") is logically flawed: even houses are taxed but subject to real estate acquisition tax. Capital gains are taxed and subject to capital gains tax.

The Young Generation: Not Without Hope

Despite everything, Lanz criticizes Precht's bleak picture of young people. Empirical studies show: young people engage socially more than previous generations, care about the common good. The Instagram image is a snapshot, not the whole picture.

The problem lies in the changed backdrop: young people grow up in a society where cultural capitalism has penetrated all niches, where advancement is uncertain, where their generation carries an incomprehensible burden of taxes and contributions (because of the large baby boomer cohort). This leads to justified frustration—not egoism.

Interestingly, many young people consciously abandon social media because they see through the business model: it's not about real social networks but engagement and product sales. This shows insight, not superficiality.

Key Findings

• The prosperity promise has collapsed; upward mobility is declining dramatically, threatening social stability
• The "leveled middle-class society" of the postwar period is regressing to a "hourglass society" with revolutionary conflict potential
• The class question is not overcome but has returned—with new manifestations (Anywheres vs. Somewheres, cultural capitalism)
• Hanno Sauer's biological justification of class societies is scientifically flawed and ideologically problematic
• Status and social distinction are real mechanisms of class reproduction, but not necessarily evolutionarily inevitable
• True inequality arises from wealth concentration and inheritances, not income—Germany's tax system systematically favors wealth
• Young people are not inherently superficial but react rationally to a changed societal backdrop without a functioning upward mobility promise

Metadata