For a utopian realism

The text discusses the relationship between utopianism, realpolitik, and anti-authoritarianism as reflected in the dialogue between Daniel Cohn-Bendit (DCB) and Claus Leggewie (CL). The conversation examines the limits of anti-authoritarianism, the nature of political friendships, and the challenge of contemporary political divides. Leggewie views the revolutionary figure as conciliatory, while Cohn-Bendit emphasizes a realist approach to progress. They trace their shared thinking on migration and meliorism, noting that political friendships are built on constructing friend-enemy relationships alongside mutual respect. The discussion pivots to the evolution of leftist thought, questioning adherence to rigid ideological lines in favor of humanism and universal principles like human dignity and cosmopolitanism. Finally, they reflect on the tension between individual freedom and collective interests, suggesting a need for new forms of collective action, such as compulsory service, to defend shared values against illiberal forces.

The dialogue reveals a deep tension between the abstract ideals of utopianism—seeking a reconstructed society based on shared values—and the pragmatic necessity of navigating material reality, particularly in an increasingly polarized geopolitical landscape. The friction point lies in how one balances internal moral commitments (humanism, cosmopolitanism) with external political strategies (realpolitik, coalition building). Leggewie's emphasis on conciliation contrasts with the more challenging stance of recognizing the inherent human capacity for extremism, as seen in the differing views on the left's historical trajectory and the nature of anti-authoritarian revolt. The intellectual shift from focusing solely on class conflict to embracing identity politics highlights a necessary evolution, yet this evolution risks dissolving shared moral foundations if not anchored firmly in universal principles like human dignity, rather than contingent political outcomes. The trajectory points toward the necessity of establishing new collective responsibilities, such as mandatory service, to provide the concrete capacity for defense against illiberal tendencies that thrive on ambiguity and identity fragmentation. The pattern suggests that when political consensus erodes, the reliance on shared moral anchors becomes paramount; failure to do so allows historical antagonisms, framed by rigid identities, to reassert themselves as the primary organizing principle.