The Other Courage

Optimism takes courage, says Christoph Sieber. That is true. But the courage needed now is a different one from the courage to hope.

I. A book we do not yet know

On 7 October 2026 the first book by the German cabaret artist Christoph Sieber appeared. It is called “Optimismut”, a play on optimism and courage, with the subtitle “How we can save ourselves and democracy”. We have not yet read it, and we say so at the outset so that nobody takes this text for a review. What we know are the publisher’s description, interviews and the announcements with which Sieber presents the book.

According to these, the book turns against painting things black. In Germany, it says, it is common to talk the country down, and prophets of doom dominate the debate. A strong social force and a strong intellectual voice must set hope against this. There are good reasons to be proud of the country, and this pride must not be left to the wrong people. Sieber’s core sentence is: “Optimism takes courage.”

Whether the book contains more than this attitude will become clear on reading it. This text is about something more general that shows in Sieber’s statements and reaches far beyond him: a way of coming to terms with the state of the country.

II. The right diagnosis

Sieber is no faith healer. In January 2026 he told the Düsseldorf street magazine fiftyfifty: “There is an extreme class struggle going on at the moment.” The government defends the interests of the rich, redistribution no longer works, large inheritances are hardly taxed. Criticism of excessive wealth is “not an envy debate”. People get worked up about abuse of unemployment benefits, while tax avoidance by millionaires and billionaires is “100,000 times greater and simply not tackled”. He sees more poverty on the streets than for a long time. And: “We in Germany are not cured of fascism.”

This matches what we have documented. In “The Calendar Bequeaths” we described how large fortunes in Germany are passed on almost tax-free, and in “The Second Inheritance” how school passes on what it was meant to balance out. Whoever says this as clearly as Sieber is not painting things black. He is describing.

III. The soft therapy

All the more striking is what follows the diagnosis in the same interview. Sieber relies on the idea “that we all must and can regulate ourselves”. He believes that a person passes on kindness “not always, but 80 per cent of the time”. He says: “I can give away part of my prosperity, and in return society as a whole is better off.” His stage show “Weitermachen!” (“Carry on!”) aims, according to Bavarian Broadcasting’s description, to strengthen democracy through optimism, solidarity and kindness. And now the book: optimism as courage.

Between the diagnosis and the therapy there is a gap. Whoever describes an extreme class struggle is describing a conflict of interests. Whoever then recommends kindness and voluntary giving treats it as if it were a misunderstanding.

IV. Why kindness turns nothing around

Imagine a tenant and his landlord, both friendly people. They greet each other on the stairs, help each other carry things, wish each other a merry Christmas. The rent rises anyway, because it follows the market, tenancy law and interest rates, not the mood on the staircase. Only a different rule can change it: a rent cap that works, housebuilding that increases supply, a court that strikes down a clause.

It is the same wherever interests stand against each other. The heir who takes over a company tax-free does not want the same as the supermarket cashier whose child, with the same performance, has a two and a half times lower chance of being recommended for the academic track. The asset managers who, as described in “Inside a Dark Rock”, are discovering retirement savings as the door to their expensive back rooms do not want the same as the saver. These are not bad people. They are people with different interests, and interests do not go away when we are nice to each other. They merely prevail more quietly, usually in favour of those who already hold the longer lever.

What has changed for the better in Germany was not achieved through kindness. Social insurance arose in the 1880s as an answer to a labour movement that was feared. The eight-hour day, codetermination and women’s suffrage were fought for, negotiated and written into law. Feelings helped to move people. What worked were the rules that stood at the end.

V. What harmony is for

The formula “we all want the same thing” is widespread because it brings relief. It allows one to pronounce the diagnosis without having to draw the consequence. The audience goes home moved, with the feeling of having done something. The next morning the class struggle it has just applauded carries on unchanged. Cabaret that ends like this is catharsis, but no sting.

In “The Role Reversal” we described how the cabaret artist Georg Schramm stopped at the end of 2013. His long-time director Hilde Schneider named the insight behind it: at best one manages to irritate the audience or get them to take a different perspective, “but changing things so that it is reflected in politics, that you cannot do anyway”. Schramm drew the consequence and buried his awards in the garden. Sieber’s stage show is called “Weitermachen!”, “Carry on!”. Whoever carries on after this insight needs a reason. The hope that kindness passes itself on 80 per cent of the time is a comfortable reason. A less comfortable one would be to move from the mirror to the demand: to show not only what is going wrong, but which rule would change it.

Harmony becomes dangerous when it covers up conflicts. Whoever does not openly name the conflicts of interest leaves the naming to those who do it crudely and with scapegoats. Sieber’s concern that the country is not cured of fascism is justified. But that very concern speaks against covering things up. Right-wing narratives of decline live on taking up real disadvantage and giving it a false culprit. They are not countered with a counter-mood, but with the right diagnosis and the right rule.

VI. What fairly speaks for him

Confidence is no small thing. Whoever resigns does not act, and in Germany resignation is more widespread than revolt. Sieber is surprised “that the young people are so quiet”. With the word class struggle he publicly names what many politicians avoid. Unlike the wager in “Whistling in the Woods”, he does not replace the diagnosis with mood; he puts the mood next to the diagnosis. And already in 2016 he said a sentence that reaches further than kindness: “Democracy must manage to make better offers again!” A better offer is a rule, not a feeling.

It is therefore quite possible that the book contains more than the courage to hope. We will read it and, if necessary, correct what we suppose here.

VII. The other courage

Optimism takes courage, but not above all the courage to hope against the doom-mongers. It takes the courage to call interests by their name and to take on those who profit from the rules as they stand. That is less comfortable than kindness, because it makes enemies.

What this means in practice is known. Tax inheritances so that business assets do not remain the great exception; the Federal Constitutional Court is currently deliberating on this, and what matters is what the legislature makes of it afterwards. Direct teachers and money to where need is greatest, as Hamburg does with its social index. Clarify who votes with whose money at annual general meetings. None of these rules comes about because people are nice to each other. Each comes about only when someone carries out the conflict, fairly, publicly and by the rules, but carries it out.

An optimism that does without this courage is a feeling. An optimism that summons it would be a programme.

Further reading: Whistling in the Woods · The Role Reversal · Automatic Optimism · The Calendar Bequeaths · The Second Inheritance