Re: [OPE-L] German recession

From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Thu Feb 03 2005 - 18:20:06 EST

Your second question is not quite clear for me. Do you mean alternatives
from other political parties? The alternatives of the christ democrats
and the liberal party go in the same direction, they just want "more"
(cuts etc.). And this "more" is also in some respect the result of
red-green policy: where shall be the difference, when red-green executes
the conservative programm, the only chance of the conservatives is to be
more radical conservative.
What I meant was whether on the left there were any alternatives
being put forward in public debate - for instance by the PDS

Your third question is difficult. On the one hand there are always
"some" alternatives: for example there is no need to decrease taxes now
and then to state, there is not enough money for financing social
transfers. So, some things could be very different. On the other hand
there is no way to a happy capitalism. I don't see a possible policy
bringing full employment (or nearly full employment) and the absence of
economic crisis. If we want to get rid of this, I see no other way as to
get rid of capitalism.
The problem with this ultimatist position is that it suffers from
two weaknesses

1. It does not account for why unemployment is much lower in
   the UK than Germany. This will be pointed out by those advocating
   a Blairite response - eg the SPD government, the EU commission etc.

2. Even if one wants to get rid of capitalism - as we both do
   one has to propose specific means by which this will take place
   economically. One has to put forward economic measures that
   a. Offer people a direct improvement in their economic condition
   b. Have an inner logic that moves on to further socialist development

   Just saying get rid of capitalism is not itself an alternative. You
   have to say get rid of it and replace it with what?
   What would be the immediate steps that have to be taken to start
   the transition process and how do you make these appeal to the
   broad mass of the population?

Paul Cockshott schrieb:

> There is something wrong with your web reference to your
> article I can not down load it.
> Does the article touch on the 3 questions that I originally asked?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Michael
> Heinrich
> Sent: 03 February 2005 12:50
> Subject: Re: [OPE-L] German recession
> Paul Cockshott schrieb:
>> The BBC yesterday reported that unemployment in
>>Germany had climbed to 12% the highest since the 30s.
>>What do German list members think the cause of this is
>>1. what will be the effects of Schroeder's policies on
>>   the level of employment
>>2. what alternatives are being advanced.
>>3. what do they think should be advanced
> At least to the first point some remarks.
> In December 2004 there were about 4.5 million people unemployed
> (according to the official statistics), now this number increased to 5
> million. The half of this increase happened because of a change in
> rules: some group of persons, already unemployed, now becoming part of
> the statistics. The other half is because of (ordinary) seasonal
> reasons. So, there is no dramatic change in this moment, but it is true
> that unemployment in the last years is higher than ever. Also this 5
> million is a number which is too less. The real number of unemployed
> persons may be near 6 million or more.
> The Schroeder policy (especially the "Hartz IV" laws) cut considerably
> the unemployment support and increase the pressure on the unemployed to
> take every job (even if it is paid much less as the usual wage rate, 30%
> less are "to bear"). Also the "1-Euro jobs" shall be increased: persons,
> who get support can be forced to work for 1 Euro per hour (an income,
> which is added to the support) in "useful" areas. Until now this means:
> cleaning parks, perhaps in the future: an unemployed teacher has to give
> additional lessons for 1 Euro per hour.
> The red green government has not only implemented the biggest social
> cuts since the end of World War II, by forcing the unemployed to take
> every job, they also produce a pressure on all wages. And at exactly the
> same time as the cuts of Hartz IV began (Jan. 1st, 2005) a tax "reform"
> started lowering considerably the tax rate for high incomes (the highest
> rate falls from 45 to 42 per cent, the lowest rate from 16 to 15 per
> cent - by the way: for non-germans also 42% may seem high, but with
> German tax laws, you have very good chances to diminish your income,
> which is really taxed with the official tax rates, so that the "real
> tax" in Germany is not higher than in countries, which have (nominal)
> lower tax rates).
> Lowering the unemployment support will not produce new employment
> possibilities, perhaps it will cut demand and destroy some employment.
> Past measures of red-green, for example stimulating of so called
> "Minijobs" (not full time jobs with less cost for social security)
> brought a notable reduction of the number of jobs with full social
> security.
> In sum, red-green policy is a desaster for the working class in general
> and especially for the unemployed and persons with low income. Sure, the
> explanation for this policy is complex, but one moment must be
> mentioned. The party, which voters have the highest average income, is
> the Green party. At least for this group of voters, red-green policy is
> perfect. I don't want to say that this is the only reason for this
> policy, but it is a fact, which may be not known outside Germany.
> For those, who read German, an article on Agenda 2010 and Hartz IV, I
> wrote last year, may be interesting. It can be found at my site
> ( see "Texte zu aktuellen Entwicklungen")


Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialwissenschaft
Postfach 100 529, D-10565 Berlin

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 04 2005 - 00:00:01 EST