Maas and Scholz are not an industrial accident of social democracy

The patriarchal, Bismarckian social laws were always accepted without reservation by the German social democracy: large parts of the wage of the dependent employees are led into the social funds and administered by the political class. These wage shares are added to the federal budget and a part is given back as alms. Only a relatively small part of the sum paid into the unemployment fund is returned to the unemployed person after a job lasting for many years in case of unemployment. First, the war in Afghanistan must be financed, the excessive number of members of the Bundestag must be fed and also the districts must receive child support, which have not paid into the social funds. German Social Democracy was always eager to defend this distribution mechanism.

The slogan of Finance Minister Scholz that there is money for everything, but not for all at the same time is only a variant of the usual right-wing parties, somewhat plumper language after elections to explain that the economy of the previous government is not there for all money.

Willy Brandt and his advisors had recognized that there were great opportunities in Eastern Europe for expanding the market and exploiting the capital, and created the political prerequisites while Helmut Schmidt already had his eye on trade with China and globalized expansion. However, he was replaced by Helmut Kohl, who promised faster profits and greater obedience to American desires. Maas understood that social democracy, as the Fischer Greens have demonstrated, can only hold itself in the government if it submits to American desires and only does business with the East, as long as American interests are not compromised. Germany has to relieve American gas, freeze trade with Iran and, of course, support the regime change in South America. Access to Venezuela's oil is too tempting, maybe German industry can benefit as well. The mass media are struggling to call the overthrow attempts a humanitarian action, feeling so secure they risk making a fool of themselves. And Maas makes himself a jumping jack and supports the quisling of the USA. But the media thank him: that threatens a Chilean massacre is concealed.

3 replies to “Maas and Scholz are not an industrial accident of the social democracy”

    1. A quisling government is set up by a foreign power. The military dictatorship used by the US in Argentina was a government of Quislingen.
      And forty years ago, in Chile, the CIA had organized a militarist revolt, toppling Allende and creating a bloody fascist dicty,
      These American interventions are anchored in the collective memory of the South Americans.

Leave a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked with * marked