Die größten Mythen über Vergesellschaftung | Mit Prof. Adam Tooze

Overview

The video is an interview with economics historian/economist Prof. Adam Tooze about the political push for “socialization” (Vergesellschaftung) of large housing corporations in Berlin—framed as a debate about expanding public control over housing stock to influence rents and housing conditions.

Key Points and Arguments

Berlin’s housing-policy proposal (as discussed)

• The state could buy back apartments from large private housing firms at reduced prices and place them into permanent public ownership, affecting:
  • rent levels
  • housing quality
• The interviewer situates the proposal as part of a broader economic-policy toolkit under consideration in connection with a potential change of government in Berlin.
• The host emphasizes that the goal is not only a transfer of money, but direct structural influence on housing supply and market power.

Why Tooze says socialization is not inherently controversial

• Tooze argues that a mixed housing economy (public plus private/cooperative) is economically sensible and not radical by itself.
• He notes that major cities already include significant public ownership, citing New York, London, and Singapore.
• He contrasts socialization with instruments like housing allowances/vouchers:
  • vouchers can avoid responsibility for housing construction
  • they do less to shape the physical housing stock
• From a “microeconomics/externalities” perspective, Tooze argues that concentrating homes and workplaces creates social benefits/external value (community, belonging) that should not automatically accrue to private owners.

Historical framing: capitalism itself “breaks” property sanctity

• Tooze challenges the notion that property is sacred, arguing that capitalism repeatedly produces major property transformations via competition and “creative destruction.”
• He presents land reform as historically common rather than exceptional, including expropriations linked to major political transitions (e.g., Reformation-era and French Revolution contexts), and later reform efforts within capitalist systems.
• He argues that after major upheavals (including post–World War dynamics), reformers often accepted that property orders should be debated and changed.

Constitutional basis in Germany: Articles 14 and 15

Tooze explains that the German constitution includes mechanisms relevant to the debate:

• Article 14
  • concerns private property
  • generally implies compensation in expropriation-like scenarios
• Article 15
  • described as more fundamental
  • explicitly enables socialization and broader structural intervention in the property/asset system
• He notes that Article 15 has never previously been applied in the Federal Republic, making current Berlin discussions a legal novelty—or at least a first realistic application in practice.

Federal resistance and “jurisdictional tricks”

The interview claims the federal level may attempt to prevent socialization not by outright constitutional repeal, but by shaping legislation so that Berlin cannot implement its own measures—a potential legal/jurisdictional strategy.

Debunking market/investor myths (liberal criticisms addressed)

The host (and Tooze in response) addresses common liberal claims that socialization:

• would deter investors from building
• would destabilize financial markets
• would undermine incentives

Tooze responds indirectly by arguing that the proposal is mainly about capital reallocation, not destroying the overall economy:

• Major investors (e.g., BlackRock) would receive compensation and can invest elsewhere.
• Therefore, deterrence arguments may not justify inaction—especially if the policy is paired with publicly driven expansion of housing stock.
• He also argues that rent problems are location-linked: rents rise due to local attractiveness and value created by society. Socialization could therefore strengthen democratic control over how that value is captured.

Vonovia / Deutsche Wohnen / BlackRock as a case study

• Tooze highlights the target: socializing large housing owners, not everyday homeowners.
• A threshold such as 3,000 apartments is mentioned to define “large” holdings.
• The companies’ counterargument is that because much of their stock is publicly traded, socialization would mainly harm “small investors.”
• Tooze interprets this as evidence of how big players’ interests can be shielded behind those of smaller shareholders.
• He discusses how interest rates influence real estate company valuations (financing through debt). Despite volatility, BlackRock reportedly increased its stake, suggesting such risks may already be priced into ownership risk.

Democratic logic: incentives and bargaining

• A central claim is that private investors benefit not only from buildings, but from the surrounding community and social fabric.
• If society decides—within constitutional limits—that rent/housing outcomes are unacceptable, then investors should not assume they can consistently capture the extra value without political constraints.
• Tooze argues this could be healthy for political discussion because it clarifies that constitutional structural intervention is legitimate.

Outlook Mentioned in the Interview

• The interview points to an upcoming Berlin election, with continued legal and economic complexity expected.
• A notable surprise outcome would be a red-red-green coalition (a new governing majority).
• Tooze expects that if socialization proceeds, it will face strong resistance, because it moves from theory to concrete implementation and directly tests constitutional authority.

Presenters / Contributors

• Lukas Scholle — host; Green Party member; editor-in-chief of Surplus
• Prof. Adam Tooze — interview guest