Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Delegitimization of the welfare state
Since the 1990s, however, the slogans of libertarians and conservatives have been heard again: more freedom, less government regulation, more privatization. Numerous foundations and think tanks are spreading the ideology of neoliberalism: deregulation, liberalization, and privatization is the mantra.
Delegitimization of the welfare state
The planned “reform plans” for social benefits conceal a serious attack on a fundamental value on which the Federal Republic of Germany is built.
The redistribution machine is running at full speed. While the money tap is overflowing for military spending, only a few drops are coming out of the tap for social benefits. And even those are too much, according to those voices in politics and the media who are urging people to tighten their belts. The welfare state is no longer affordable, they say. To conceal this glaring contradiction, every trick in the book is being used to manipulate the figures for propaganda purposes. Because in the end, this is about much more than gradual savings in the social sector. What is euphemistically referred to as “reform” is in reality nothing less than the comprehensive erosion of the welfare state. This is constitutive for a republic in which people can live in dignity — the dignity that is enshrined in the Basic Law.
by Reinhard Faudt
[This article posted on 9/19/2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.manova.news/artikel/delegitimierung-des-sozialstaates.]
“The welfare state as we know it today can no longer be financed by what we achieve economically.” — Friedrich Merz, CDU
“The welfare state is the last great cultural achievement of (Western) Europeans to date. Anyone who allowed it to collapse would (...) jeopardize the political foundations of democracy.” — Helmut Schmidt (1)
Do you also have two wallets? One contains only a little change for the bare necessities — and even these expenses are already planned for, as you are already living on your overdraft. The other is full of credit commitments that amount to many times your annual income, allowing you to really live it up. Our government finds itself in this schizophrenic situation: on the one hand, the finance minister complains that the federal budget is tens of billions short and all ministers must make savings, while on the other hand, the governing coalition has just relaxed the debt brake to allow new debt of 1 trillion euros, i.e. a thousand billion!
Surely there must be enough money for schools, teaching positions, training, daycare places, public transport, climate protection, cultural promotion, language courses for migrants, expansion of healthcare, poverty reduction, and... and... and...
After Friedrich Merz's bold announcement and Federal Labor Minister Bärbel Bas's “bullshit” response, the leaders of the governing coalition quickly tried to calm the heated public debate. They emphasized that they did not want to “destroy” the welfare state, but that ‘reform’ was absolutely necessary. The steep rise in social welfare spending made this unavoidable — and they wanted to set up an “independent commission of experts” to look into the matter first. Memories of the unspeakable Hartz Commission come to mind.
The political leadership elite is particularly afraid that citizens will recognize and discuss the all too obvious: the glaring contradiction between the gigantic accumulation of debt on the one hand and the reduction of social benefits and the elimination of relief measures (such as electricity prices) on the other.
That would certainly spell the end of the Social Democratic Party. So they resort to reassuring terms such as “reform” and try to make the contradictions invisible, for example through manipulative public relations and silence.
The focus on “excessive” social benefits, as expressed in many media headlines, is manipulative in itself: “Pensions, health, and care are deeply in the red — and yet they provide poor protection against major risks. Many things need to be cut back.” (Wirtschaftswoche) “The impossible reform of the citizen's income exposes the supremacy of the welfare state.” (Die Welt)
What is being hushed up is that the burdens, which have been distributed increasingly unevenly in society for decades, are reaching new heights of injustice with this new debt package.
While the lower and middle income groups are increasingly burdened by social security contributions, taxes, rents, and higher energy prices, the incomes and assets of the wealthiest ten percent of households, which account for approximately 60 percent of total assets in Germany, are rising, while the bottom 20 percent of households have no assets. However, they will feel the burden of a “reform” of the welfare state most acutely. The welfare state principle of the Basic Law was created to protect all citizens from poverty-related exclusion from the democratic decision-making process and to enable them all to participate actively in political decision-making processes in the democratic community.
“Property entails obligations. Its use should also serve the welfare of the community,” states Article 14 of the Basic Law. The constitution thus gives politicians the task of ensuring that the rich and wealthy contribute appropriately to the financing of the community. While an average working-class family with two children has to spend around 43 percent of its income on taxes and social security contributions, rich entrepreneurs and wealthy individuals usually pay less than their employees in percentage terms thanks to numerous tax tricks.
Whose interests are politicians really serving?
With the decision by two-thirds of the old Bundestag in favor of a gigantic rearmament package, the obedient transatlanticists (2) of the CDU/CSU and SPD, with the support of the Greens (and parts of the Left Party), have embarked on a political course that is primarily intended to please NATO and the Trump administration:
to make Germany the leading military power in Europe
to make itself “fit for war” in response to a propagandistically conjured Russian attack
to import more expensive fracking gas instead of Russian gas and to do everything possible to “ruin Russia”
spending billions on new weapons in the US to wage a unwinnable war in Ukraine, and
accepting Trump's unfair tariffs without resistance in order to keep him happy.
Conclusion: Voluntary subordination to the geopolitical strategy of the US and NATO without taking into account the will of the majority of its own population, which approves of a defense army but not a dangerous course of confrontation with the nuclear power Russia.
Politics for the good of the people?
In their oath of office, the chancellor and vice-chancellor swore to “dedicate their strength to the welfare of the German people, to increase their benefit, to avert harm from them, and to uphold the Basic Law and the laws of the Federation.”
“We are the people!” cried the citizens of the GDR, overthrowing a government that had also failed to consider the interests and welfare of its own population. Today, the citizens remain silent — but for how long?
Do we still remember how Green Party Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock justified her policy toward Russia with the words, “no matter what my German voters think”? The interests and opinions of our own citizens seem to be negligible. Even the bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline—the biggest terrorist attack on Germany's energy supply—does not seem to particularly concern our leaders. (3)
The cornucopia of fiscal policy is being distributed—but to whom, and in whose interest?
Following Chancellor Merz, Vice Chancellor Klingbeil (SPD) has now also promised Ukraine further financial aid. “We will support Ukraine with nine billion euros annually,” he said during a visit to Kiev. The same Klingbeil is demanding that citizens tighten their belts at home in Berlin. (4) At the same time, those in power are lavishly spending money on other things:
100 billion in special funds for the German armed forces — with the absurd justification that Russia threatens NATO, which is heavily armed and militarily far superior
50 billion has been spent on support for Ukraine so far — not including the weapons that the US is still buying with our tax money, which Ms. von der Leyen promised Trump
500 billion in new debt for infrastructure and climate protection (the latter only under pressure from the Green Party)
10 billion euros in relief and tax cuts for companies, even though it is precisely the ineffective sanctions against Russia and the economically and ecologically nonsensical replacement of Russian gas supplies with US fracking gas that have driven up economic costs in this country.
But:
There is no money available to reduce citizens' energy costs.
And we can't afford pensions for much longer.
And health insurance costs are too high.
And certainly not citizen's income!
In short: the entire welfare state is no longer financially viable.
Hiding these obvious contradictions from the public requires media support and clever public relations, in short: propaganda. And the public also needs to be told how best to close the “gaps in the budget.”
The propaganda hammer: the welfare state costs us 1,345 billion!
The government's propaganda machine, especially that of the CDU/CSU, is just getting into full swing. And the media — which has been particularly obedient to the government since Corona and the war in Ukraine (5) — is commenting with anticipatory obedience:
“The challenges are enormous: the German economy is facing its third year without growth, the welfare state and the pension system cannot keep pace with demographic developments, and there is a gap of around 172 billion euros in the federal budget for the years 2027 to 2029. The welfare state must change if it is to survive.” (6)
Statistical tricks are used to ensure that citizens fully understand the “seriousness of the situation”: the welfare state will cost us a staggering 1,345 billion euros in 2024, i.e. 1.345 trillion! That would be just under 31 percent of Germany's total economic output. In short, almost every third euro will be spent on social benefits. This was reported in several newspapers and online media outlets.
What is wrong with this?
Not only are apples being counted with oranges, but all types of fruit are being added together: the fact is that around 61 percent of all social spending is paid for by contributions from insured persons — but this is not apparent in the propaganda! In fact, “only” €58.2 billion was paid for citizen's income, €129.5 billion for youth, social and integration assistance, and €61.1 billion for support for families and children.
Is this really no longer affordable?
The pension lie
The situation is similar with pensions — the favorite topic of liberals and conservatives: there are complaints about high pension payments, and the danger of contribution increases is dramatically exaggerated, as if this would result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, even though employers only pay half of the contribution.
A generational conflict is conjured up and the alleged demographic problem is constantly invoked: fewer and fewer full-time workers would have to support more and more pensioners. Not a word is said about the government's dipping into the pension fund to finance election gifts such as mothers' pensions and other non-insurance benefits: Between 1957 and 2023, these accounted for between 34 and 40 percent of all pension payments. Government subsidies, on the other hand, always remained well below this level. (7)
A look at Austria
A look at Austria can show us how nonsensical this propaganda is in the interests of the insurance lobby and wealthy taxpayers. (8) In 2022, the average old-age pension in Austria was €1,751 (gross) per month, in Germany €1,177 (gross), with contributions to the statutory pension in Germany at 18.6 percent of gross wages (2024) and in Austria at 22.8 percent (2024).
“An important point here is that in Germany, employers and employees share the pension contribution and each pay 9.3 percent of gross wages. In Austria, employers pay more, namely 12.55 percent of gross wages, while employees pay 10.25 percent.” (9)
But there is another significant difference to the German pension system: in Austria, all employed persons are insured under the statutory pension system.
Those in the established parties who constantly criticize the high pension payments and contributions in Germany could see from this example that the economy does not immediately collapse when contribution rates rise — but they prefer to ignore this.
It is usually those who oppose an increase in the minimum wage who have promoted the emergence of Europe's largest low-wage sector in recent decades and who constantly call for wage restraint, but who, as members of parliament, increase their allowances with admirable regularity.
No wonder, then, that pension insurance contributions are insufficient, since only those who earn less than the self-employed and civil servants pay into the system.
The debate about fair distribution is more important than the demographic problem
Is it true that fewer and fewer workers have to support more and more pensioners? That the elderly are living at the expense of the young? This is how memorable propaganda sounds:
Let's imagine that a year's economic output is a big cake. All the children, working parents, and grandparents in a village are invited to eat the cake. The cake is paid for by the parents who have good jobs. Every year, the cake-eating is repeated, and every year the cake gets a little bigger (economic growth). After several years, it becomes apparent that there are fewer working parents or that they have less work, but at the same time they also have to spend less on childcare (decline in births, child benefits, etc.) and more on grandparents who are living longer. Why should they get smaller pieces when the cake is getting bigger?
In reality, “the cake” arouses the envy of other groups: the “association of (wealthy) taxpayers,” employers, private insurers, the financial lobby, and their political representatives in the ‘centrist’ parties. Their dream: more “personal responsibility” for citizens, less state redistribution, more privatization of old-age provision. Lowering the pension level was a prerequisite for this: under pressure from lobbyists, it has been reduced in recent decades—from over 55 percent in the 1970s to below 50 percent since 2012, with a low of 47.7 percent in 2015.
Fear of poverty in old age is widespread given the huge low-wage sector — and then people are supposed to set aside money for private pension provision?
Is that supposed to be a solidarity-based solution to old-age provision? Parties that emphasize the mantra of social justice must stand up against such plans. It is not enough for the SPD minister to shout “bullshit” at Friedrich Merz and at the same time call for “reform.”
The policies of the “centrist parties” have long been co-opted by financially powerful interest groups and their networks. Their goal: a market-driven, weak state and a welfare state that is little more than poor relief.
What is behind the attacks on the welfare state?
The welfare state is a cornerstone of our constitution (10) and reflects the experiences of poverty and political instability during the Weimar Republic and the rise of the Nazi dictatorship. It was economic crises and the support of wealthy industrialists and publishers that facilitated the rise of the NSDAP. After the end of the war, it was primarily Social Democrats, trade unionists, and parts of the CDU who, against this backdrop, advocated for the principle of the welfare state in the Basic Law—because all civil liberties are worthless if you live in poverty.
All civil liberties are worthless if you live in poverty.
Those who are poor also lack the most basic material resources necessary for political participation in the democratic decision-making process. Those who are rich can articulate themselves strongly in the media, build networks, corrupt politicians, and finance the media.
Since the 1990s, however, the slogans of libertarians and conservatives have been heard again: more freedom, less government regulation, more privatization. Numerous foundations and think tanks are spreading the ideology of neoliberalism: deregulation, liberalization, and privatization is the mantra.
The welfare state, as a network of solidarity for “ordinary people,” restricts their greed for new investment and profit opportunities.
The state should be weakened, as Javier Milei is demonstrating in Argentina with his “chainsaw” or Donald Trump and his billionaire clique in the US. Certainly, the Union under Friedrich Merz is still a long way from this, but with the AfD, it could establish a neoliberal regime that would undermine democracy and the welfare state beyond recognition. And in the end, there could be another world war, the last one.
Sources and notes:
(1) DIE ZEIT, March 30, 2000, p. 8
(2) See the author's article in: https://www.manova.news/artikel/die-zeitenwende-7
(3) https://braunschweig-spiegel.de/fake-news-die-andromeda-story-ein-unglaubwuerdiges-maerchen/
(4) https://lostineu.eu/update-ukraine-klingbeil-verspricht-neun-milliarden-euro-im-jahr/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_source_platform=mailpoet
(5) See: Uwe Krüger, Mainstream. Why we no longer trust the media. 2016
(6) https://www.dw.com/de/alles-bullshit-wie-die-regierung-%C3%BCber-rente-und-b%C3%BCrgergeld-streitet/a-73835876
(7) https://www.adg-ev.de/publikationen/publikationen-altersvorsorge/1387-versicherungsfremde-leistungen-2015?showall=1
(8) https://www.igmetall.de/politik-und-gesellschaft/sozialpolitik/rente/was-wir-bei-der-rente-von-oesterreich-lernen-koennen
(9) Ibid.
(10) Art. 20(1) Basic Law
Reinhard Faudt, born in 1948, studied German language and literature, political science, and economics at the University of Göttingen from 1969 to 1975 with the aim of becoming a high school teacher. During this time, he was involved in the Marxist wing of the left-wing student movement and was subsequently subjected to a ministerial interrogation, which he passed thanks to his good knowledge of the Basic Law. He then worked full-time for many decades as a teacher at various types of schools and high schools. He has been retired since 2014.
The planned “reform plans” for social benefits conceal a serious attack on a fundamental value on which the Federal Republic of Germany is built.
The redistribution machine is running at full speed. While the money tap is overflowing for military spending, only a few drops are coming out of the tap for social benefits. And even those are too much, according to those voices in politics and the media who are urging people to tighten their belts. The welfare state is no longer affordable, they say. To conceal this glaring contradiction, every trick in the book is being used to manipulate the figures for propaganda purposes. Because in the end, this is about much more than gradual savings in the social sector. What is euphemistically referred to as “reform” is in reality nothing less than the comprehensive erosion of the welfare state. This is constitutive for a republic in which people can live in dignity — the dignity that is enshrined in the Basic Law.
by Reinhard Faudt
[This article posted on 9/19/2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.manova.news/artikel/delegitimierung-des-sozialstaates.]
“The welfare state as we know it today can no longer be financed by what we achieve economically.” — Friedrich Merz, CDU
“The welfare state is the last great cultural achievement of (Western) Europeans to date. Anyone who allowed it to collapse would (...) jeopardize the political foundations of democracy.” — Helmut Schmidt (1)
Do you also have two wallets? One contains only a little change for the bare necessities — and even these expenses are already planned for, as you are already living on your overdraft. The other is full of credit commitments that amount to many times your annual income, allowing you to really live it up. Our government finds itself in this schizophrenic situation: on the one hand, the finance minister complains that the federal budget is tens of billions short and all ministers must make savings, while on the other hand, the governing coalition has just relaxed the debt brake to allow new debt of 1 trillion euros, i.e. a thousand billion!
Surely there must be enough money for schools, teaching positions, training, daycare places, public transport, climate protection, cultural promotion, language courses for migrants, expansion of healthcare, poverty reduction, and... and... and...
After Friedrich Merz's bold announcement and Federal Labor Minister Bärbel Bas's “bullshit” response, the leaders of the governing coalition quickly tried to calm the heated public debate. They emphasized that they did not want to “destroy” the welfare state, but that ‘reform’ was absolutely necessary. The steep rise in social welfare spending made this unavoidable — and they wanted to set up an “independent commission of experts” to look into the matter first. Memories of the unspeakable Hartz Commission come to mind.
The political leadership elite is particularly afraid that citizens will recognize and discuss the all too obvious: the glaring contradiction between the gigantic accumulation of debt on the one hand and the reduction of social benefits and the elimination of relief measures (such as electricity prices) on the other.
That would certainly spell the end of the Social Democratic Party. So they resort to reassuring terms such as “reform” and try to make the contradictions invisible, for example through manipulative public relations and silence.
The focus on “excessive” social benefits, as expressed in many media headlines, is manipulative in itself: “Pensions, health, and care are deeply in the red — and yet they provide poor protection against major risks. Many things need to be cut back.” (Wirtschaftswoche) “The impossible reform of the citizen's income exposes the supremacy of the welfare state.” (Die Welt)
What is being hushed up is that the burdens, which have been distributed increasingly unevenly in society for decades, are reaching new heights of injustice with this new debt package.
While the lower and middle income groups are increasingly burdened by social security contributions, taxes, rents, and higher energy prices, the incomes and assets of the wealthiest ten percent of households, which account for approximately 60 percent of total assets in Germany, are rising, while the bottom 20 percent of households have no assets. However, they will feel the burden of a “reform” of the welfare state most acutely. The welfare state principle of the Basic Law was created to protect all citizens from poverty-related exclusion from the democratic decision-making process and to enable them all to participate actively in political decision-making processes in the democratic community.
“Property entails obligations. Its use should also serve the welfare of the community,” states Article 14 of the Basic Law. The constitution thus gives politicians the task of ensuring that the rich and wealthy contribute appropriately to the financing of the community. While an average working-class family with two children has to spend around 43 percent of its income on taxes and social security contributions, rich entrepreneurs and wealthy individuals usually pay less than their employees in percentage terms thanks to numerous tax tricks.
Whose interests are politicians really serving?
With the decision by two-thirds of the old Bundestag in favor of a gigantic rearmament package, the obedient transatlanticists (2) of the CDU/CSU and SPD, with the support of the Greens (and parts of the Left Party), have embarked on a political course that is primarily intended to please NATO and the Trump administration:
to make Germany the leading military power in Europe
to make itself “fit for war” in response to a propagandistically conjured Russian attack
to import more expensive fracking gas instead of Russian gas and to do everything possible to “ruin Russia”
spending billions on new weapons in the US to wage a unwinnable war in Ukraine, and
accepting Trump's unfair tariffs without resistance in order to keep him happy.
Conclusion: Voluntary subordination to the geopolitical strategy of the US and NATO without taking into account the will of the majority of its own population, which approves of a defense army but not a dangerous course of confrontation with the nuclear power Russia.
Politics for the good of the people?
In their oath of office, the chancellor and vice-chancellor swore to “dedicate their strength to the welfare of the German people, to increase their benefit, to avert harm from them, and to uphold the Basic Law and the laws of the Federation.”
“We are the people!” cried the citizens of the GDR, overthrowing a government that had also failed to consider the interests and welfare of its own population. Today, the citizens remain silent — but for how long?
Do we still remember how Green Party Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock justified her policy toward Russia with the words, “no matter what my German voters think”? The interests and opinions of our own citizens seem to be negligible. Even the bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline—the biggest terrorist attack on Germany's energy supply—does not seem to particularly concern our leaders. (3)
The cornucopia of fiscal policy is being distributed—but to whom, and in whose interest?
Following Chancellor Merz, Vice Chancellor Klingbeil (SPD) has now also promised Ukraine further financial aid. “We will support Ukraine with nine billion euros annually,” he said during a visit to Kiev. The same Klingbeil is demanding that citizens tighten their belts at home in Berlin. (4) At the same time, those in power are lavishly spending money on other things:
100 billion in special funds for the German armed forces — with the absurd justification that Russia threatens NATO, which is heavily armed and militarily far superior
50 billion has been spent on support for Ukraine so far — not including the weapons that the US is still buying with our tax money, which Ms. von der Leyen promised Trump
500 billion in new debt for infrastructure and climate protection (the latter only under pressure from the Green Party)
10 billion euros in relief and tax cuts for companies, even though it is precisely the ineffective sanctions against Russia and the economically and ecologically nonsensical replacement of Russian gas supplies with US fracking gas that have driven up economic costs in this country.
But:
There is no money available to reduce citizens' energy costs.
And we can't afford pensions for much longer.
And health insurance costs are too high.
And certainly not citizen's income!
In short: the entire welfare state is no longer financially viable.
Hiding these obvious contradictions from the public requires media support and clever public relations, in short: propaganda. And the public also needs to be told how best to close the “gaps in the budget.”
The propaganda hammer: the welfare state costs us 1,345 billion!
The government's propaganda machine, especially that of the CDU/CSU, is just getting into full swing. And the media — which has been particularly obedient to the government since Corona and the war in Ukraine (5) — is commenting with anticipatory obedience:
“The challenges are enormous: the German economy is facing its third year without growth, the welfare state and the pension system cannot keep pace with demographic developments, and there is a gap of around 172 billion euros in the federal budget for the years 2027 to 2029. The welfare state must change if it is to survive.” (6)
Statistical tricks are used to ensure that citizens fully understand the “seriousness of the situation”: the welfare state will cost us a staggering 1,345 billion euros in 2024, i.e. 1.345 trillion! That would be just under 31 percent of Germany's total economic output. In short, almost every third euro will be spent on social benefits. This was reported in several newspapers and online media outlets.
What is wrong with this?
Not only are apples being counted with oranges, but all types of fruit are being added together: the fact is that around 61 percent of all social spending is paid for by contributions from insured persons — but this is not apparent in the propaganda! In fact, “only” €58.2 billion was paid for citizen's income, €129.5 billion for youth, social and integration assistance, and €61.1 billion for support for families and children.
Is this really no longer affordable?
The pension lie
The situation is similar with pensions — the favorite topic of liberals and conservatives: there are complaints about high pension payments, and the danger of contribution increases is dramatically exaggerated, as if this would result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, even though employers only pay half of the contribution.
A generational conflict is conjured up and the alleged demographic problem is constantly invoked: fewer and fewer full-time workers would have to support more and more pensioners. Not a word is said about the government's dipping into the pension fund to finance election gifts such as mothers' pensions and other non-insurance benefits: Between 1957 and 2023, these accounted for between 34 and 40 percent of all pension payments. Government subsidies, on the other hand, always remained well below this level. (7)
A look at Austria
A look at Austria can show us how nonsensical this propaganda is in the interests of the insurance lobby and wealthy taxpayers. (8) In 2022, the average old-age pension in Austria was €1,751 (gross) per month, in Germany €1,177 (gross), with contributions to the statutory pension in Germany at 18.6 percent of gross wages (2024) and in Austria at 22.8 percent (2024).
“An important point here is that in Germany, employers and employees share the pension contribution and each pay 9.3 percent of gross wages. In Austria, employers pay more, namely 12.55 percent of gross wages, while employees pay 10.25 percent.” (9)
But there is another significant difference to the German pension system: in Austria, all employed persons are insured under the statutory pension system.
Those in the established parties who constantly criticize the high pension payments and contributions in Germany could see from this example that the economy does not immediately collapse when contribution rates rise — but they prefer to ignore this.
It is usually those who oppose an increase in the minimum wage who have promoted the emergence of Europe's largest low-wage sector in recent decades and who constantly call for wage restraint, but who, as members of parliament, increase their allowances with admirable regularity.
No wonder, then, that pension insurance contributions are insufficient, since only those who earn less than the self-employed and civil servants pay into the system.
The debate about fair distribution is more important than the demographic problem
Is it true that fewer and fewer workers have to support more and more pensioners? That the elderly are living at the expense of the young? This is how memorable propaganda sounds:
Let's imagine that a year's economic output is a big cake. All the children, working parents, and grandparents in a village are invited to eat the cake. The cake is paid for by the parents who have good jobs. Every year, the cake-eating is repeated, and every year the cake gets a little bigger (economic growth). After several years, it becomes apparent that there are fewer working parents or that they have less work, but at the same time they also have to spend less on childcare (decline in births, child benefits, etc.) and more on grandparents who are living longer. Why should they get smaller pieces when the cake is getting bigger?
In reality, “the cake” arouses the envy of other groups: the “association of (wealthy) taxpayers,” employers, private insurers, the financial lobby, and their political representatives in the ‘centrist’ parties. Their dream: more “personal responsibility” for citizens, less state redistribution, more privatization of old-age provision. Lowering the pension level was a prerequisite for this: under pressure from lobbyists, it has been reduced in recent decades—from over 55 percent in the 1970s to below 50 percent since 2012, with a low of 47.7 percent in 2015.
Fear of poverty in old age is widespread given the huge low-wage sector — and then people are supposed to set aside money for private pension provision?
Is that supposed to be a solidarity-based solution to old-age provision? Parties that emphasize the mantra of social justice must stand up against such plans. It is not enough for the SPD minister to shout “bullshit” at Friedrich Merz and at the same time call for “reform.”
The policies of the “centrist parties” have long been co-opted by financially powerful interest groups and their networks. Their goal: a market-driven, weak state and a welfare state that is little more than poor relief.
What is behind the attacks on the welfare state?
The welfare state is a cornerstone of our constitution (10) and reflects the experiences of poverty and political instability during the Weimar Republic and the rise of the Nazi dictatorship. It was economic crises and the support of wealthy industrialists and publishers that facilitated the rise of the NSDAP. After the end of the war, it was primarily Social Democrats, trade unionists, and parts of the CDU who, against this backdrop, advocated for the principle of the welfare state in the Basic Law—because all civil liberties are worthless if you live in poverty.
All civil liberties are worthless if you live in poverty.
Those who are poor also lack the most basic material resources necessary for political participation in the democratic decision-making process. Those who are rich can articulate themselves strongly in the media, build networks, corrupt politicians, and finance the media.
Since the 1990s, however, the slogans of libertarians and conservatives have been heard again: more freedom, less government regulation, more privatization. Numerous foundations and think tanks are spreading the ideology of neoliberalism: deregulation, liberalization, and privatization is the mantra.
The welfare state, as a network of solidarity for “ordinary people,” restricts their greed for new investment and profit opportunities.
The state should be weakened, as Javier Milei is demonstrating in Argentina with his “chainsaw” or Donald Trump and his billionaire clique in the US. Certainly, the Union under Friedrich Merz is still a long way from this, but with the AfD, it could establish a neoliberal regime that would undermine democracy and the welfare state beyond recognition. And in the end, there could be another world war, the last one.
Sources and notes:
(1) DIE ZEIT, March 30, 2000, p. 8
(2) See the author's article in: https://www.manova.news/artikel/die-zeitenwende-7
(3) https://braunschweig-spiegel.de/fake-news-die-andromeda-story-ein-unglaubwuerdiges-maerchen/
(4) https://lostineu.eu/update-ukraine-klingbeil-verspricht-neun-milliarden-euro-im-jahr/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_source_platform=mailpoet
(5) See: Uwe Krüger, Mainstream. Why we no longer trust the media. 2016
(6) https://www.dw.com/de/alles-bullshit-wie-die-regierung-%C3%BCber-rente-und-b%C3%BCrgergeld-streitet/a-73835876
(7) https://www.adg-ev.de/publikationen/publikationen-altersvorsorge/1387-versicherungsfremde-leistungen-2015?showall=1
(8) https://www.igmetall.de/politik-und-gesellschaft/sozialpolitik/rente/was-wir-bei-der-rente-von-oesterreich-lernen-koennen
(9) Ibid.
(10) Art. 20(1) Basic Law
Reinhard Faudt, born in 1948, studied German language and literature, political science, and economics at the University of Göttingen from 1969 to 1975 with the aim of becoming a high school teacher. During this time, he was involved in the Marxist wing of the left-wing student movement and was subsequently subjected to a ministerial interrogation, which he passed thanks to his good knowledge of the Basic Law. He then worked full-time for many decades as a teacher at various types of schools and high schools. He has been retired since 2014.
For more information:
http://www.freetranslations.foundation
Add Your Comments
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$260.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network