ALLIANCE FO§ DEMOCRACY

The sluts of the SPD

The term “Social market economy” goes back to the economist and social philosopher Wilhelm Röpke (1899-1966). The term was coined to describe the design of the economic market which was intended to bring profit for the working man, in the form of appropriate payment and therefore prosperity.
Workers did not usually live in a state of prosperity. Workers had their labour, which they had to offer on the labour market. This work was rewarded with payment. At the end of the 19th century, there were thousands of poorly-paid professions in Germany; this low pay was finally to be brought to an end. Workers wanted to have a share in the profits made by the companies for which they worked. They called for higher wages; but no business was prepared to pay these higher wages. The result was strikes, demonstrations and street battles. The dichotomy between high profits and low earnings strengthened the opposing views of the two camps.
Since about 1863, and the foundation of the “Allgemeines Deutsches Arbeiterverein” (“German Workers’ Association”), there has been a counter-programme to the exploitation of workers by their employers, the basic concept of Marxist teaching, which is considered as an essential requirement for a classless society; a society in which nobody is exploited any longer by other people, simply because some people own the means of production, such as factories, machinery and tools, while others do not. The workers thereby overlooked the fact that only new machines and their specific use and the competition to use machines and people in this way, as demanded by the market, could contribute to businessmen and workers achieving the same rewards. At least if they were interested in bowing continually to progress.
In principle, both sides are still engaged in this struggle to this day. After the Second World War, German Social Democrats called for a Socialist democracy (Kurt Schumacher). This provided for the adequate payment of workers and many other rights. Herbert Wehner (SPD) betrayed the idea of Socialist democracy, in that he agreed to the fundamental programme of the SPD, as decided at the extraordinary Party Congress of the SPD on 13-15 November 1959 (the “Godesberg programme”, valid from 1959-1989), and thus the so-called social market economy. In the Germany of that time, the aim was to create a counter-proposal to the GDR, also a counter-program to the Economic Association of socialist States - an expensive betrayal for reasons of vanity.
Economics Minister Karl Schiller (SPD) and Finance Minister Franz Josef Strauss (CDU), set aside the well-being of the people in the second Grand Coalition, and with it most of the rights enshrined in the Constitution. The State should have the control, without the interference of the economy and the markets (and even politics). The people and the Government were thus alienated from each other, the State and the form of its existence still somehow came about; an excellent breeding ground for corruption, lobbyism, partisan politics and links between business, banking, politics, Church, and also between power and the law.
The paragraphs in the Constitution became nothing more than fine-sounding solutions; unfortunately, it was abused by the political caste, in order to foster their own interests over those of the economy and the financial markets. It could also be said: for this reason changes were not happening that would need to happen. Reforms, such as pension reform, which is based on Bismarck’s ideas until today; there were no laws that limited the power of the triumvirate of politics, economics and finance; no reforms of the legal system, which might have resulted in clearer legal ways and means in the interests of the people; with the intention of representing the people.
From all this developed a political mish-mash of conformity, which granted the triumvirate absolute freedom and power of action, which extended to the point of bending and breach of the law. The social market economy, with its pillars of private and corporate pension and retirement provision, can no longer be implemented. The debts of the social security systems can no longer be repaid. Generations to come will have neither pensions, nor the ability to earn enough money in order to maintain themselves. In addition, the few rich people will have more money than all future debt-payers together have to pay in debts. Social democracy has lost out completely in the Merkel III game – it will form part of the contribution to delaying the insolvency of the country, which makes its citizens pay for mistaken party-political decisions. The weaving of the shroud of Europe will cost social democracy all the liabilities which once protected wage-earners. By its agreement to the Maastricht Treaty, social democracy shattered the principles which it had already bent, on the Agenda 2010, on the ratification of the ESM, the Financial Stabilisation Act and Fund, because this brought about the socialisation of the losses of the banks, for which all citizens must now pay. If Social Democrats now want to maintain their profile with the childcare allowance and the introduction of the minimum wage as headlines for voters, then this is marketing, and is the province of political work only insofar as this will go down in the history books as a historic blunder to accompany the mistakes already made.
This is happening in particular because the net minimum wages offered by the parties only slightly exceed the Hartz-IV rate (monthly support rate + rent + ancillary costs), and that despite the Agenda 2010 or just because of it, which was also to be extended from 2017 to those in work. Nothing more will happen in this area throughout the entire legislature of Merkel III, according to the Coalition Treaty.
In the course of new elections from 2017, something else may apply, so that for those in work and those now in retirement, there will no longer be any noticeable difference between wages and support. This is particularly unfair to all low wage-earners, whose earnings are often still below the Hartz-IV rate. Employees earn little more than the basic necessities, and also often provide countless hours of unpaid overtime. They thus serve their boss’s desire for profit, but also the stupidity of the Government, which keeps support levels low, and then also deducts wages and support from the minimum wages.
This fact demonstrates the absurdity of the entire, uncontrolled system, because this practice must be considered as evidence of how party politics has transformed socially compliant policy in line with market conditions, which is contrary to the social order as once laid down in the Constitution. This is dictatorship. It must be ended by setting a frame of action for all areas which eliminates the difference between earnings and support, and allows workers once again to live within their means. The sluts of the SPD have failed to set up or to fight for such participation or wage settlements, although they have often enough had the chance to do so.