🎓 Christoph Burgmer im Gespräch mit Christoph Butterwegge (geb. 1951). Der Kölner Politologe Christoph Butterwegge erläutert den Zusammenhang zwischen Kürzungen der Sozialleisten sowie der Rente und der Verdreifachung der Militärausgaben. Das so genannte "Sondervermögen" für das deutsche Militär sind jedoch in Wahrheit neue Staatsschulden ohne rechtliche Grundlage. Die Kosten für diesen dritten deutschen Militarismuswahn nach wilhelminischem Kaiserreich und Nationalsozialismus werden zukünftige Generationen tragen müssen.
/🎓 Christoph Burgmer in conversation with Christoph Butterwegge (born 1951). Cologne-based political scientist Christoph Butterwegge explains the connection between cuts to social benefits and pensions and the tripling of military spending. However, the so-called ‘special fund’ for the German military is in reality new government debt without any legal basis. The costs of this third wave of German militarism, following the Wilhelmine Empire and National Socialism, will have to be paid by future generations.
/🎓 Christoph Burgmer en conversación con Christoph Butterwegge (nacido en 1951). El politólogo de Colonia Christoph Butterwegge explica la relación entre los recortes en las prestaciones sociales y las pensiones y la triplicación del gasto militar. Sin embargo, los llamados «fondos especiales» para el ejército alemán son, en realidad, nuevas deudas públicas sin base legal. Los costes de esta tercera locura militarista alemana, tras el Imperio guillermino y el nacionalsocialismo, tendrán que soportarlos las generaciones futuras.
📚 Veröffentlichungen u.a. / publications a.o. / Publicaciones, entre otras::
- Christoph Butterwegge / Carolin Butterwegge: "Kinder der Ungleichheit. Wie sich die Gesellschaft ihrer Zukunft beraubt." Campus Verlag, Frankfurt a.M. 2021.
- Christoph Butterwegge: "Umverteilung des Reichtums." PapyRossa Verlag, Köln 2024.
- Christoph Butterwegge: "Deutschland im Krisenmodus. Infektion, Invasion und Inflation als gesellschaftliche Herausforderung." Beltz Verlag, Weinheim 2024.
👍 audio archiv is self-financed. All podcasts are free of charge. If you like the podcast, leave us your comment 🪶 and give us your like 🫶. Help us to keep our free audio archive with a donation here! Or become a patron... or buy us a fresh ➙ coffee ☕. Thank you for your support 🌏🦋🙏
Every Friday a new interview. Follow us & Subsribe. Never miss an episode.Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:08):
Welcome to Audio Archive, the channel for historical interviews with female writers, philosophers,
activists, and intellectuals from around the world.
(00:34):
Hello. The Cologne political scientist Christoph Butterwegge emphatically reminds us in this
conversation that the social participation of all people in the Federal Republic of Germany
is enshrined in the Basic Law.
This constitutional right, confirmed by the Federal Constitutional Court as a dignified minimum
(00:55):
existence, encompasses the social, political, and cultural participation of all people in German democracy.
In this area, social-political statements from the far-right AfD demonstrate that the party
is hostile to the constitution.
The characteristic-oriented racism propagated by Alice Weidel and others finds voter approval
(01:19):
not only in East Germany.
Characteristic-oriented racism means that one or two characteristics are sufficient, such as
being of colour or a migrant, to deny people the minimum existence, which recalls National Socialist
concepts regarding Jews, people with disabilities, or Sinti and Roma.
(01:41):
The approval for this arises from a lack of education in solidarity in society, stemming from
the German ice-coldness, as Christoph Butterwegge puts it, and is amplified by exploding military expenditures.
For the remilitarisation of the Federal Republic, with its leadership claim propagated by Friedrich
(02:01):
Merz, generates fears not only due to the historical tradition of German militarism throughout Europe.
It also means the dismantling of the welfare state under the argument of lack of financial viability.
Public discussions about the arming of the German army obscure the actual social costs and populistically bombard the welfare state.
Christoph Butterwegge counters (02:28):
Similar to the time of the founding of the Federal Republic,
during the then compensation for burdens, he demands a special levy of ten percent on high fortunes stretched over five years.
So that interest and repayments for the military credit of 100 billion are not paid expensively
by future generations and further benefits like pensions do not have to be cut.
(02:53):
And the Federal Republic of Germany can fulfil its constitutional duty enshrined in the Basic Law.
When I was at school, in the 70s and early 80s, I already had lessons about the social gap that
was widening, the two-thirds society that was actually already emerging there.
That has already been taught.
(03:14):
The people who come from the GDR say that this social inequality did not exist in the GDR.
In certain respects, there was certainly more social equality in the GDR.
So incomes did not vary as widely.
And of course, the gap between rich and poor was in no way comparable to what exists today in Germany.
(03:37):
That on one side, 13 million people are at risk of poverty, 15.5 percent of the population,
and poverty increasingly penetrates the middle of society, while on the other side, wealth is
concentrated in a few hands, with five families owning as much as the poorer half of the population,
that is, more than 40 million people.
(03:58):
That did not exist in the GDR.
And there was certainly less privilege in other respects than is the case with us through capital ownership.
But one should not glorify the GDR for that reason.
But one should have, when the reunification took place in 1990, on the 3rd.
October, taken much from the GDR in the education system, which was not adopted, but those came
(04:25):
who acted like colonial masters and believed they could transfer the Western capitalist system
1 to 1 to East Germany.
And the then newly formed East German federal states were essentially imposed with that, even
though one no longer wanted the GDR.
(04:45):
Whether one wanted this form of Rhineland capitalism, as we have it today, with these enormous
military expenditures that will ultimately strangle the welfare state, I believe those who brought
about and caused the fall of the Wall in 1989 did not want that.
(05:07):
And in that respect, this historical development is of course one for former GDR citizens that
has gone in a direction they did not aspire to.
And today they feel, in many respects, when one speaks to them, more helpless than those who
grew up in the Federal Republic and thus actually inhaled this injustice and inequality with their mother's milk.
(05:34):
Yes, anyone who lived in East Germany, even before the fall of the Wall, was of course not confronted
with all that is now crashing down on them.
That one must assert oneself in this way in the competition of this capitalist elbow society was not known.
And then, of course, it was particularly difficult after reunification, especially with the
(05:59):
mass unemployment in East Germany, as businesses were wound up and taken over by West German
corporations, which is now reflected in the lower pensions.
Yes, that is of course a major problem, that old-age poverty is rampant and, by the way, if
nothing is done about it, it will continue to increase.
This will become particularly noticeable in the East but also in West Germany in the coming years.
(06:25):
And that would actually require that one is willing to redistribute wealth from the top down.
Only if that is done could one ensure that all people can live without social disadvantage in
peace and in a democratic, humane, and social society.
(06:45):
But for that, much more pressure, extra-parliamentary pressure, would need to be exerted on
the established parties to compel them to implement reforms as they were in the 1970s under Willy Brandt.
These were called for more social and democratic rights for the majority of the population and
(07:07):
not such reforms that now cause people to fear old-age poverty and automatically reach for their
wallets, as reforms always mean painful interventions in the social system, and naturally, those who are disadvantaged suffer.
And this benefits those who are privileged, who have capital, who receive higher profit expectations,
(07:31):
and whose return prospects are improved in this way.
Is there a historical precedent or historical experience in the Federal Republic where the rich
had to contribute more to the common good, necessarily, than is the case today?
Yes, there was. In 1952, a CDU, CSU, FDP government enacted the Equalisation of Burdens Act
(07:56):
and pushed it through Parliament.
This equalisation of burdens meant that very high fortunes were taxed at 50 percent but over
a long period of 30 years.
The very rich hardly noticed this because this long period naturally led to them making additional
(08:19):
and repeatedly new profits, and inflationary tendencies also reduced the value of this half of their wealth.
We will continue shortly with the interview.
Like us if you enjoy it.
I think today a similar wealth contribution, as I propose in the book "Redistribution of Wealth",
would be 10 percent stretched over five years annually, so two percent for very high fortunes.
(08:46):
A contribution that those with broad shoulders, high fortunes, should pay.
I am orienting myself to the allowances that already exist in our inheritance and gift tax legislation.
I would set a one million euro allowance for the person who has to pay the tax, in this case
(09:10):
this corresponding wealth contribution that he is supposed to make, this wealth levy.
Then there is an allowance for a life partner or a wife, a husband.
And there is an allowance for each child, so a family of four would already have an allowance of 2.3 million.
(09:36):
In addition, our gift and inheritance tax legislation stipulates that one receives an additional
exemption for a property or a house if one lives in it.
And that means this family could also naturally use their own home.
It would not be counted towards the wealth on which the wealth levy would then be imposed.
(10:01):
And that means it would already be a very, very wealthy family from which one would start to
impose such a wealth levy.
No one who possesses so much would have to order one less meal in a restaurant or restrict themselves in any way.
What percentage of Germans does that affect, approximately?
(10:24):
Well, that needs to be calculated by an institute that has the relevant capabilities.
That is not my job as a scientist.
I have to make recommendations that can then be implemented in practice.
Those affected are so and so many millions, which I cannot quantify right now.
I don't find that to be the decisive factor either.
(10:45):
Two years ago, the Spanish government passed a similar law.
There was a huge uproar and great outrage (10:53):
"We are leaving now." We can go anywhere in Europe.
We are going to Portugal.
There they even speak our language. They understand us.
In fact, no one has come to sit.
They have all stayed there.
Yes, that is also what I believe.
So when it comes to the very important inheritance tax for business heirs (11:13):
The richest man in
the Federal Republic, Dieter Schwarz, owner of Lidl and Kaufland, with a private fortune of
42.7 billion euros, cannot just tuck his Kaufland and Lidl branches under his arm and walk away,
and furthermore, there is also an exit tax in Germany, which, expressed in American terms, is
(11:35):
an Exit Tax that the left-wing Democrats in the USA even want to raise to 50 percent.
So if one wants to do it politically, then one can certainly prevent that from happening.
One just has to want it politically.
And I believe that such a wealth levy will not cause anyone to leave or transfer their wealth abroad.
(12:00):
I think that would be absurd.
And if someone were to do that, then there are indeed ways to prevent it, and secondly, it would
not change the fact that tax revenues would definitely increase and the state would be more
able to combat poverty, as combating poverty costs a lot of money.
(12:21):
Now, in the whole debate about social justice, poverty, and the citizen's income, there has
been a rather strange turn in the last two or three years brought about by the AfD, namely that
it is particularly foreigners who are plundering this welfare state and ultimately harming the
(12:42):
national body and the national community, so to speak, and that they must go, and if they were
gone, everything would be fine.
Yes, that is, let’s say, the basic narrative of all right-wing extremist fascists and Nazis
and neo-Nazis, that migrants are blamed for everything.
(13:05):
Alice Weidel, the AfD chairwoman and parliamentary group leader in the Bundestag, has therefore
called in her summer interview in 2025 for the citizen's income to be abolished for those who have come from abroad.
This is an example that the AfD is unconstitutional, because the fundamental norm of our Basic
(13:29):
Law, namely Article 1 of our Constitution, states that human dignity is inviolable.
And it is, of course, deliberately not the dignity of the German that is inviolable, but the
dignity of the human being.
And that means, to rob a person of their existence simply because they have migrated is incompatible
with democratic principles and with our constitution.
(13:53):
And I believe that migrants have, quite the opposite, contributed a great deal to the prosperity
of this country and continue to do so, but on the other hand, people should not be assessed based on their utility.
Whether they are economically viable.
It is then said that immigration of highly qualified individuals is indeed desired, and even
(14:14):
right-wing extremists do not question this.
But as soon as one begins to judge people based on whether they are useful or useless in economic
terms or in terms of the national economy, that is pure Nazi language.
And one must then oppose that if one believes all people are equal.
(14:34):
And of course, if one also accepts that people come to us from different reasons, certainly
not for the good weather in Germany, from distant countries.
Be it that they are politically persecuted, that they are religiously discriminated against,
that they are oppressed, that they come from war zones or that they are fleeing poverty.
(14:56):
I believe these are all reasons that make it understandable and would prompt all of us to leave
our homeland, which is not easy for anyone.
Friends, relatives, acquaintances, the life context in which one has grown up, leaving all that
behind is something one only does when one is in a very dire situation.
(15:19):
And to show more understanding for that, to let solidarity prevail in society, that is what I miss.
And such an icy coldness in social matters actually makes me fear that we are developing into
a society in which one can hardly live.
A quarter of the German population is now of this opinion, which the AfD also represents.
(15:44):
Legally speaking, however, everyone has an individual right to social support, regardless of
race, age, gender, and origin.
A democratic state would be one that respects this individual right that someone has; it would actually be dead.
Yes, it would at least no longer be a democratic state.
The Federal Constitutional Court has ruled on this question, stating that the "minimum subsistence
(16:07):
level worthy of human dignity" must be ensured through transfer payments.
This means that the Federal Republic of Germany has the task and the duty to ensure that people
do not starve in our country, but also that they can participate in the social, cultural, social,
(16:30):
and political life of this Republic.
And that is exactly what the state, what governments, must heed.
Now closing the borders and believing that this would solve all problems only plays into the hands of right-wing extremists.
And if one were to channel water to the mills of the AfD, one cannot undermine its support.
(16:54):
Friedrich Merz promised during his time as opposition leader to halve the AfD.
What his policies have achieved so far is a doubling of the AfD.
Approval ratings and the election results of this party.
And this clearly shows that democratic and social reform policies, as I envision them, would
(17:19):
rather serve to dry up the breeding ground for right-wing extremists.
For if all people in this society had a livelihood, if they were more satisfied than is currently
the case, if enough housing were provided, even before the so-called refugee summer of 2015,
(17:40):
there were indeed few apartments in the big cities, particularly few affordable apartments for
people who belong to the socially disadvantaged.
Tackling this problem, lowering rents, ensuring that all people are well cared for, would lead
to the AfD having less support.
(18:01):
However, there has been a published opinion for at least three years that operates with entirely different standards.
It instills fear in people.
It states that we have a new enemy here, Russia, which is threatening Europe.
And not only that, but we are at a disadvantage.
(18:22):
Russia has not managed to conquer Ukraine in three years.
Why must one make 100 billion euros available for this militarisation, which brings fear and terror to people?
Of course, a social claim, as you have just formulated, recedes far into the background for most in reality.
(18:43):
Yes, for me there is the alternative of either armaments or the welfare state.
So, hysteria is being spread.
A military historian says that we may have experienced the last summer in peace.
It is being suggested that the Russian army is strong enough to attack the 32 NATO states, whose
(19:06):
armaments budget is several times greater.
Russia has not only failed to conquer Ukraine in over three and a half years of war, but has
not even taken the Donbass, a small region on its border, so militarily it should be in a position
for Russian troops to soon be standing in front of Berlin, Hamburg or Munich.
(19:29):
Anyone who believes that I can only advise to see a doctor, because this assumption is so irrational. But it resonates.
Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, who fortunately is not yet called the War Minister like the
one in the USA, must only say Putin loudly and clearly in the cabinet.
(19:51):
And already, new armament projects are being decided upon and set in motion on an unprecedented scale.
The interview will continue shortly, like us if you enjoy it.
I believe that if one were to approach this with a certain historical awareness, one would find
(20:11):
that in Russia there is perhaps even more fear of NATO than we have fear of Russia due to historical experience.
So, Russia has been attacked from Western Europe four times.
The first time by Napoleon's Grande Armée, the second time by the German Empire in 1914 under
(20:31):
Kaiser Wilhelm, the third time during the intervention wars from 1918 to 1920 against the young
Soviet Union, and then under Nazi Germany by the Wehrmacht in the worst, most brutal and bestial
war in world history from 1941 onwards, and my grandmother said in the 1950s that if we do not
(20:53):
rearm, the Russian will soon be at the Rhine.
I see no single Russian soldier in Cologne, where I live, but I see not only a combat brigade
of the Bundeswehr in Lithuania, but also NATO troops at the Russian western border.
That is the reality today, which hardly anyone here perceives.
(21:16):
Therefore, one should try to assess the whole situation more realistically and soberly, and
a tripling of the armaments budget from now 52 billion euros in 2024 to 153 billion euros in
2029 as planned by the federal government.
(21:39):
This increase means, of course, that Friedrich Merz is right with his statement that the welfare
state, as we have it, is no longer financially viable.
It is certainly financially viable, but not if one triples the defence budget.
So the alternative is really arms or the welfare state, and people in Germany must decide what they want.
(22:01):
Do they want this remilitarisation of public life?
Do they want the uniform to be worn and upheld more and more?
Do they want a stronger Bundeswehr, which according to Friedrich Merz is to become the strongest conventional army in Europe?
So this claim to great power that is associated with it triggers understandable fears in Russia,
(22:25):
due to the experience that the Soviet Union had 28 million deaths in this Operation Barbarossa
that the Nazi Wehrmacht launched there.
The fears are certainly understandable, but conversely, I find they are not.
But how forgetful of history one is in the Federal Republic has also been shown to me when the
(22:47):
Ukrainian army attempted an incursion precisely in Kursk, thus penetrating Russian territory.
In Kursk, in 1943, the largest tank battle in world history took place with almost 10,000 tanks
of the Nazi Wehrmacht and the Red Army.
And that now German tanks are being delivered to Ukraine to shoot at Russians hardly bothered anyone here.
(23:15):
However, it certainly had a certain taste for me, where I think that even if, which is indeed
correct, arms deliveries to a threatened or invaded state are legitimate according to the UN
Charter, Germany does not have to ensure, due to its history, that possibly even long-range
(23:36):
weapons like the Taurus, such a cruise missile, escalate the war in Ukraine further, but it
would be the task of a country like Germany to ensure that wars are made impossible and that
a peace settlement occurs as quickly as possible.
But exactly that is not happening.
The delicate inclinations of Donald Trump in this direction were, as I perceived it, rather undermined by European statesmen.
(24:05):
So that means diplomacy is not called for, but arms, arms, arms.
One wants to rein in Russia, and this concern to assert or expand one's own power positions
takes precedence over everything else.
Social spending, education, and culture will also suffer from the fact that military matters
(24:28):
are gaining an increasingly higher priority.
One gets the impression, when one looks back a bit in history, that the achievements brought
about by the social movement of the '68 generation that changed the country are being rolled
back culturally and educationally in terms of enlightenment and tolerance.
The project is essentially a corporatist state, a CDU corporatist city, as it emerged in the 1950s and 60s.
(24:57):
There has already been some of that, as seen in the appointment of Frauke Brosius Gersdorf,
who failed; a judge who wanted to give more consideration to women's rights in abortion law
was apparently not acceptable to the CDU-CSU parliamentary group.
(25:23):
And that certainly had something of the 1950s atmosphere of the Adenauer era, where children,
family, husband, and wife were the family image that one would quite like to have back.
And Friedrich Merz, as a former Blackrock manager, is not only someone who has written a book
(25:45):
called 'Dare More Capitalism', but he is also someone who is very conservatively shaped by the
Sauerland, where I also lived as a child, and imagines that the old conditions should perhaps be restored.
I fear that it may not be a March revolution like in 1948, but rather a March restoration under
(26:07):
this new CDU, CSU, SPD, yes, I have 1948, oh no, there was the currency reform in 1948, but
the March revolution was in 1848.
This value conservatism finds support.
We have a Chancellor who is one of the few who has not yet had to endure insults from Donald
(26:30):
Trump, but he apparently thinks very highly of him.
Is it also because socially and militarily they are indeed of one mind, and the Federal Republic
is becoming a fulfilment tool of American great power interests?
Yes, a Blackrock manager and a property shark like Donald Trump simply fit together in terms of their habits.
(26:54):
However, I must admit that I would have wished for a Chancellor who, during his inaugural visit
to the Oval Office, does not sit there silently while Trump delivers his monologues, but rather
I would have wished for a Chancellor who would have questioned the five percent of GDP for armaments
in such a way that he would have asked Donald Trump why the economic strength of a country should
(27:20):
actually determine what that country spends on armaments?
This must surely be measured against the threat situation.
If Germany comes out of the recession and experiences a huge upswing, the armament expenditures
must explode even more than they already do.
(27:40):
Because five percent of GDP naturally also means, even with a booming economy, an exploding armament agenda.
But it is completely nonsensical to tie armament expenditures to economic growth; I find that crazy.
A country must spend as much money on armaments as it needs to defend itself, but not based
(28:03):
on how strong its economy is.
Or if he could have asked Donald Trump, that would have required courage, which Friedrich Merz
does not have at all.
He is more concerned with representing the material interests of the rich and super-rich.
And when he..., how utterly embarrassing is that?
(28:24):
When a multimillionaire like Merz, whose private wealth is estimated at 11 million euros, says
the phrase (28:29):
"We have lived beyond our means." A single mother on citizen's income has never lived beyond her means.
A multimillionaire like him certainly has.
But to appropriate the poor by speaking of 'we', I simply find that indecent.
(28:53):
Perhaps one last question. William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, wrote in an essay in 1693,
in which he dealt with presidencies and peace in Europe (29:01):
"Truth often suffers more from the
zeal of its defenders than from the arguments of its opponents." Does this describe our current
discussion about the military and military expenditures?
Yes, that is certainly a nice bon mot, but Penn could not have foreseen the material interests
(29:27):
and the corresponding social and power-political framework conditions.
And one must pay attention to that.
Also, for example, to NATO's military strategies, the double eastward expansion, which has naturally raised concerns in Russia.
But one can see from the exploding stock prices of Rheinmetall who the beneficiaries are.
(29:52):
These are indeed very wealthy individuals who own such stocks and not the majority of the population,
who will ultimately have to pay the bill for the debts.
For now, it is being suggested that the relaxation of the debt brake for military spending and
also the 500 billion for the special fund for infrastructure and climate neutrality could ensure that it costs nothing.
(30:20):
But the repayment of these loans and also the interest must come from the federal budget.
And that means, of course, the question for future generations will be, who pays this back?
And one can also see again that inequality in the country is growing, because the very rich
(30:41):
lend the state money for these armament expenditures and for these other investments.
But ultimately, those who need transfer payments to get by, who rely on the welfare state, which
is fundamentally tied to democracy, as one can see in Article 20, which, alongside Article 1
(31:06):
of the Basic Law, cannot be altered in its principles, will be affected.
And those who will actually have to repay the debts will be the ones whose lives are made even
harder through cuts in the welfare state.
This means that society will continue to fragment, which I believe does not correspond to the
(31:32):
purpose of the Basic Law.
Profits are privatised and debts are socialised.
Yes, that is certainly the conclusion one can draw.
Thank you for joining us at audioarchiv.
Follow us, so you won't miss an episode, and don't forget the like button.
Until next week, your audioarchiv team.
Welcome to Audio Archive, the channel for historical interviews with female writers, philosophers,
activists, and intellectuals from around the world.
(00:34):
Hello. The Cologne political scientist Christoph Butterwegge emphatically reminds us in this
conversation that the social participation of all people in the Federal Republic of Germany
is enshrined in the Basic Law.
This constitutional right, confirmed by the Federal Constitutional Court as a dignified minimum
(00:55):
existence, encompasses the social, political, and cultural participation of all people in German democracy.
In this area, social-political statements from the far-right AfD demonstrate that the party
is hostile to the constitution.
The characteristic-oriented racism propagated by Alice Weidel and others finds voter approval
(01:19):
not only in East Germany.
Characteristic-oriented racism means that one or two characteristics are sufficient, such as
being of colour or a migrant, to deny people the minimum existence, which recalls National Socialist
concepts regarding Jews, people with disabilities, or Sinti and Roma.
(01:41):
The approval for this arises from a lack of education in solidarity in society, stemming from
the German ice-coldness, as Christoph Butterwegge puts it, and is amplified by exploding military expenditures.
For the remilitarisation of the Federal Republic, with its leadership claim propagated by Friedrich
(02:01):
Merz, generates fears not only due to the historical tradition of German militarism throughout Europe.
It also means the dismantling of the welfare state under the argument of lack of financial viability.
Public discussions about the arming of the German army obscure the actual social costs and populistically bombard the welfare state.
Christoph Butterwegge counters (02:28):
Similar to the time of the founding of the Federal Republic,
during the then compensation for burdens, he demands a special levy of ten percent on high fortunes stretched over five years.
So that interest and repayments for the military credit of 100 billion are not paid expensively
by future generations and further benefits like pensions do not have to be cut.
(02:53):
And the Federal Republic of Germany can fulfil its constitutional duty enshrined in the Basic Law.
When I was at school, in the 70s and early 80s, I already had lessons about the social gap that
was widening, the two-thirds society that was actually already emerging there.
That has already been taught.
(03:14):
The people who come from the GDR say that this social inequality did not exist in the GDR.
In certain respects, there was certainly more social equality in the GDR.
So incomes did not vary as widely.
And of course, the gap between rich and poor was in no way comparable to what exists today in Germany.
(03:37):
That on one side, 13 million people are at risk of poverty, 15.5 percent of the population,
and poverty increasingly penetrates the middle of society, while on the other side, wealth is
concentrated in a few hands, with five families owning as much as the poorer half of the population,
that is, more than 40 million people.
(03:58):
That did not exist in the GDR.
And there was certainly less privilege in other respects than is the case with us through capital ownership.
But one should not glorify the GDR for that reason.
But one should have, when the reunification took place in 1990, on the 3rd.
October, taken much from the GDR in the education system, which was not adopted, but those came
(04:25):
who acted like colonial masters and believed they could transfer the Western capitalist system
1 to 1 to East Germany.
And the then newly formed East German federal states were essentially imposed with that, even
though one no longer wanted the GDR.
(04:45):
Whether one wanted this form of Rhineland capitalism, as we have it today, with these enormous
military expenditures that will ultimately strangle the welfare state, I believe those who brought
about and caused the fall of the Wall in 1989 did not want that.
(05:07):
And in that respect, this historical development is of course one for former GDR citizens that
has gone in a direction they did not aspire to.
And today they feel, in many respects, when one speaks to them, more helpless than those who
grew up in the Federal Republic and thus actually inhaled this injustice and inequality with their mother's milk.
(05:34):
Yes, anyone who lived in East Germany, even before the fall of the Wall, was of course not confronted
with all that is now crashing down on them.
That one must assert oneself in this way in the competition of this capitalist elbow society was not known.
And then, of course, it was particularly difficult after reunification, especially with the
(05:59):
mass unemployment in East Germany, as businesses were wound up and taken over by West German
corporations, which is now reflected in the lower pensions.
Yes, that is of course a major problem, that old-age poverty is rampant and, by the way, if
nothing is done about it, it will continue to increase.
This will become particularly noticeable in the East but also in West Germany in the coming years.
(06:25):
And that would actually require that one is willing to redistribute wealth from the top down.
Only if that is done could one ensure that all people can live without social disadvantage in
peace and in a democratic, humane, and social society.
(06:45):
But for that, much more pressure, extra-parliamentary pressure, would need to be exerted on
the established parties to compel them to implement reforms as they were in the 1970s under Willy Brandt.
These were called for more social and democratic rights for the majority of the population and
(07:07):
not such reforms that now cause people to fear old-age poverty and automatically reach for their
wallets, as reforms always mean painful interventions in the social system, and naturally, those who are disadvantaged suffer.
And this benefits those who are privileged, who have capital, who receive higher profit expectations,
(07:31):
and whose return prospects are improved in this way.
Is there a historical precedent or historical experience in the Federal Republic where the rich
had to contribute more to the common good, necessarily, than is the case today?
Yes, there was. In 1952, a CDU, CSU, FDP government enacted the Equalisation of Burdens Act
(07:56):
and pushed it through Parliament.
This equalisation of burdens meant that very high fortunes were taxed at 50 percent but over
a long period of 30 years.
The very rich hardly noticed this because this long period naturally led to them making additional
(08:19):
and repeatedly new profits, and inflationary tendencies also reduced the value of this half of their wealth.
We will continue shortly with the interview.
Like us if you enjoy it.
I think today a similar wealth contribution, as I propose in the book "Redistribution of Wealth",
would be 10 percent stretched over five years annually, so two percent for very high fortunes.
(08:46):
A contribution that those with broad shoulders, high fortunes, should pay.
I am orienting myself to the allowances that already exist in our inheritance and gift tax legislation.
I would set a one million euro allowance for the person who has to pay the tax, in this case
(09:10):
this corresponding wealth contribution that he is supposed to make, this wealth levy.
Then there is an allowance for a life partner or a wife, a husband.
And there is an allowance for each child, so a family of four would already have an allowance of 2.3 million.
(09:36):
In addition, our gift and inheritance tax legislation stipulates that one receives an additional
exemption for a property or a house if one lives in it.
And that means this family could also naturally use their own home.
It would not be counted towards the wealth on which the wealth levy would then be imposed.
(10:01):
And that means it would already be a very, very wealthy family from which one would start to
impose such a wealth levy.
No one who possesses so much would have to order one less meal in a restaurant or restrict themselves in any way.
What percentage of Germans does that affect, approximately?
(10:24):
Well, that needs to be calculated by an institute that has the relevant capabilities.
That is not my job as a scientist.
I have to make recommendations that can then be implemented in practice.
Those affected are so and so many millions, which I cannot quantify right now.
I don't find that to be the decisive factor either.
(10:45):
Two years ago, the Spanish government passed a similar law.
There was a huge uproar and great outrage (10:53):
"We are leaving now." We can go anywhere in Europe.
We are going to Portugal.
There they even speak our language. They understand us.
In fact, no one has come to sit.
They have all stayed there.
Yes, that is also what I believe.
So when it comes to the very important inheritance tax for business heirs (11:13):
The richest man in
the Federal Republic, Dieter Schwarz, owner of Lidl and Kaufland, with a private fortune of
42.7 billion euros, cannot just tuck his Kaufland and Lidl branches under his arm and walk away,
and furthermore, there is also an exit tax in Germany, which, expressed in American terms, is
(11:35):
an Exit Tax that the left-wing Democrats in the USA even want to raise to 50 percent.
So if one wants to do it politically, then one can certainly prevent that from happening.
One just has to want it politically.
And I believe that such a wealth levy will not cause anyone to leave or transfer their wealth abroad.
(12:00):
I think that would be absurd.
And if someone were to do that, then there are indeed ways to prevent it, and secondly, it would
not change the fact that tax revenues would definitely increase and the state would be more
able to combat poverty, as combating poverty costs a lot of money.
(12:21):
Now, in the whole debate about social justice, poverty, and the citizen's income, there has
been a rather strange turn in the last two or three years brought about by the AfD, namely that
it is particularly foreigners who are plundering this welfare state and ultimately harming the
(12:42):
national body and the national community, so to speak, and that they must go, and if they were
gone, everything would be fine.
Yes, that is, let’s say, the basic narrative of all right-wing extremist fascists and Nazis
and neo-Nazis, that migrants are blamed for everything.
(13:05):
Alice Weidel, the AfD chairwoman and parliamentary group leader in the Bundestag, has therefore
called in her summer interview in 2025 for the citizen's income to be abolished for those who have come from abroad.
This is an example that the AfD is unconstitutional, because the fundamental norm of our Basic
(13:29):
Law, namely Article 1 of our Constitution, states that human dignity is inviolable.
And it is, of course, deliberately not the dignity of the German that is inviolable, but the
dignity of the human being.
And that means, to rob a person of their existence simply because they have migrated is incompatible
with democratic principles and with our constitution.
(13:53):
And I believe that migrants have, quite the opposite, contributed a great deal to the prosperity
of this country and continue to do so, but on the other hand, people should not be assessed based on their utility.
Whether they are economically viable.
It is then said that immigration of highly qualified individuals is indeed desired, and even
(14:14):
right-wing extremists do not question this.
But as soon as one begins to judge people based on whether they are useful or useless in economic
terms or in terms of the national economy, that is pure Nazi language.
And one must then oppose that if one believes all people are equal.
(14:34):
And of course, if one also accepts that people come to us from different reasons, certainly
not for the good weather in Germany, from distant countries.
Be it that they are politically persecuted, that they are religiously discriminated against,
that they are oppressed, that they come from war zones or that they are fleeing poverty.
(14:56):
I believe these are all reasons that make it understandable and would prompt all of us to leave
our homeland, which is not easy for anyone.
Friends, relatives, acquaintances, the life context in which one has grown up, leaving all that
behind is something one only does when one is in a very dire situation.
(15:19):
And to show more understanding for that, to let solidarity prevail in society, that is what I miss.
And such an icy coldness in social matters actually makes me fear that we are developing into
a society in which one can hardly live.
A quarter of the German population is now of this opinion, which the AfD also represents.
(15:44):
Legally speaking, however, everyone has an individual right to social support, regardless of
race, age, gender, and origin.
A democratic state would be one that respects this individual right that someone has; it would actually be dead.
Yes, it would at least no longer be a democratic state.
The Federal Constitutional Court has ruled on this question, stating that the "minimum subsistence
(16:07):
level worthy of human dignity" must be ensured through transfer payments.
This means that the Federal Republic of Germany has the task and the duty to ensure that people
do not starve in our country, but also that they can participate in the social, cultural, social,
(16:30):
and political life of this Republic.
And that is exactly what the state, what governments, must heed.
Now closing the borders and believing that this would solve all problems only plays into the hands of right-wing extremists.
And if one were to channel water to the mills of the AfD, one cannot undermine its support.
(16:54):
Friedrich Merz promised during his time as opposition leader to halve the AfD.
What his policies have achieved so far is a doubling of the AfD.
Approval ratings and the election results of this party.
And this clearly shows that democratic and social reform policies, as I envision them, would
(17:19):
rather serve to dry up the breeding ground for right-wing extremists.
For if all people in this society had a livelihood, if they were more satisfied than is currently
the case, if enough housing were provided, even before the so-called refugee summer of 2015,
(17:40):
there were indeed few apartments in the big cities, particularly few affordable apartments for
people who belong to the socially disadvantaged.
Tackling this problem, lowering rents, ensuring that all people are well cared for, would lead
to the AfD having less support.
(18:01):
However, there has been a published opinion for at least three years that operates with entirely different standards.
It instills fear in people.
It states that we have a new enemy here, Russia, which is threatening Europe.
And not only that, but we are at a disadvantage.
(18:22):
Russia has not managed to conquer Ukraine in three years.
Why must one make 100 billion euros available for this militarisation, which brings fear and terror to people?
Of course, a social claim, as you have just formulated, recedes far into the background for most in reality.
(18:43):
Yes, for me there is the alternative of either armaments or the welfare state.
So, hysteria is being spread.
A military historian says that we may have experienced the last summer in peace.
It is being suggested that the Russian army is strong enough to attack the 32 NATO states, whose
(19:06):
armaments budget is several times greater.
Russia has not only failed to conquer Ukraine in over three and a half years of war, but has
not even taken the Donbass, a small region on its border, so militarily it should be in a position
for Russian troops to soon be standing in front of Berlin, Hamburg or Munich.
(19:29):
Anyone who believes that I can only advise to see a doctor, because this assumption is so irrational. But it resonates.
Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, who fortunately is not yet called the War Minister like the
one in the USA, must only say Putin loudly and clearly in the cabinet.
(19:51):
And already, new armament projects are being decided upon and set in motion on an unprecedented scale.
The interview will continue shortly, like us if you enjoy it.
I believe that if one were to approach this with a certain historical awareness, one would find
(20:11):
that in Russia there is perhaps even more fear of NATO than we have fear of Russia due to historical experience.
So, Russia has been attacked from Western Europe four times.
The first time by Napoleon's Grande Armée, the second time by the German Empire in 1914 under
(20:31):
Kaiser Wilhelm, the third time during the intervention wars from 1918 to 1920 against the young
Soviet Union, and then under Nazi Germany by the Wehrmacht in the worst, most brutal and bestial
war in world history from 1941 onwards, and my grandmother said in the 1950s that if we do not
(20:53):
rearm, the Russian will soon be at the Rhine.
I see no single Russian soldier in Cologne, where I live, but I see not only a combat brigade
of the Bundeswehr in Lithuania, but also NATO troops at the Russian western border.
That is the reality today, which hardly anyone here perceives.
(21:16):
Therefore, one should try to assess the whole situation more realistically and soberly, and
a tripling of the armaments budget from now 52 billion euros in 2024 to 153 billion euros in
2029 as planned by the federal government.
(21:39):
This increase means, of course, that Friedrich Merz is right with his statement that the welfare
state, as we have it, is no longer financially viable.
It is certainly financially viable, but not if one triples the defence budget.
So the alternative is really arms or the welfare state, and people in Germany must decide what they want.
(22:01):
Do they want this remilitarisation of public life?
Do they want the uniform to be worn and upheld more and more?
Do they want a stronger Bundeswehr, which according to Friedrich Merz is to become the strongest conventional army in Europe?
So this claim to great power that is associated with it triggers understandable fears in Russia,
(22:25):
due to the experience that the Soviet Union had 28 million deaths in this Operation Barbarossa
that the Nazi Wehrmacht launched there.
The fears are certainly understandable, but conversely, I find they are not.
But how forgetful of history one is in the Federal Republic has also been shown to me when the
(22:47):
Ukrainian army attempted an incursion precisely in Kursk, thus penetrating Russian territory.
In Kursk, in 1943, the largest tank battle in world history took place with almost 10,000 tanks
of the Nazi Wehrmacht and the Red Army.
And that now German tanks are being delivered to Ukraine to shoot at Russians hardly bothered anyone here.
(23:15):
However, it certainly had a certain taste for me, where I think that even if, which is indeed
correct, arms deliveries to a threatened or invaded state are legitimate according to the UN
Charter, Germany does not have to ensure, due to its history, that possibly even long-range
(23:36):
weapons like the Taurus, such a cruise missile, escalate the war in Ukraine further, but it
would be the task of a country like Germany to ensure that wars are made impossible and that
a peace settlement occurs as quickly as possible.
But exactly that is not happening.
The delicate inclinations of Donald Trump in this direction were, as I perceived it, rather undermined by European statesmen.
(24:05):
So that means diplomacy is not called for, but arms, arms, arms.
One wants to rein in Russia, and this concern to assert or expand one's own power positions
takes precedence over everything else.
Social spending, education, and culture will also suffer from the fact that military matters
(24:28):
are gaining an increasingly higher priority.
One gets the impression, when one looks back a bit in history, that the achievements brought
about by the social movement of the '68 generation that changed the country are being rolled
back culturally and educationally in terms of enlightenment and tolerance.
The project is essentially a corporatist state, a CDU corporatist city, as it emerged in the 1950s and 60s.
(24:57):
There has already been some of that, as seen in the appointment of Frauke Brosius Gersdorf,
who failed; a judge who wanted to give more consideration to women's rights in abortion law
was apparently not acceptable to the CDU-CSU parliamentary group.
(25:23):
And that certainly had something of the 1950s atmosphere of the Adenauer era, where children,
family, husband, and wife were the family image that one would quite like to have back.
And Friedrich Merz, as a former Blackrock manager, is not only someone who has written a book
(25:45):
called 'Dare More Capitalism', but he is also someone who is very conservatively shaped by the
Sauerland, where I also lived as a child, and imagines that the old conditions should perhaps be restored.
I fear that it may not be a March revolution like in 1948, but rather a March restoration under
(26:07):
this new CDU, CSU, SPD, yes, I have 1948, oh no, there was the currency reform in 1948, but
the March revolution was in 1848.
This value conservatism finds support.
We have a Chancellor who is one of the few who has not yet had to endure insults from Donald
(26:30):
Trump, but he apparently thinks very highly of him.
Is it also because socially and militarily they are indeed of one mind, and the Federal Republic
is becoming a fulfilment tool of American great power interests?
Yes, a Blackrock manager and a property shark like Donald Trump simply fit together in terms of their habits.
(26:54):
However, I must admit that I would have wished for a Chancellor who, during his inaugural visit
to the Oval Office, does not sit there silently while Trump delivers his monologues, but rather
I would have wished for a Chancellor who would have questioned the five percent of GDP for armaments
in such a way that he would have asked Donald Trump why the economic strength of a country should
(27:20):
actually determine what that country spends on armaments?
This must surely be measured against the threat situation.
If Germany comes out of the recession and experiences a huge upswing, the armament expenditures
must explode even more than they already do.
(27:40):
Because five percent of GDP naturally also means, even with a booming economy, an exploding armament agenda.
But it is completely nonsensical to tie armament expenditures to economic growth; I find that crazy.
A country must spend as much money on armaments as it needs to defend itself, but not based
(28:03):
on how strong its economy is.
Or if he could have asked Donald Trump, that would have required courage, which Friedrich Merz
does not have at all.
He is more concerned with representing the material interests of the rich and super-rich.
And when he..., how utterly embarrassing is that?
(28:24):
When a multimillionaire like Merz, whose private wealth is estimated at 11 million euros, says
the phrase (28:29):
"We have lived beyond our means." A single mother on citizen's income has never lived beyond her means.
A multimillionaire like him certainly has.
But to appropriate the poor by speaking of 'we', I simply find that indecent.
(28:53):
Perhaps one last question. William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, wrote in an essay in 1693,
in which he dealt with presidencies and peace in Europe (29:01):
"Truth often suffers more from the
zeal of its defenders than from the arguments of its opponents." Does this describe our current
discussion about the military and military expenditures?
Yes, that is certainly a nice bon mot, but Penn could not have foreseen the material interests
(29:27):
and the corresponding social and power-political framework conditions.
And one must pay attention to that.
Also, for example, to NATO's military strategies, the double eastward expansion, which has naturally raised concerns in Russia.
But one can see from the exploding stock prices of Rheinmetall who the beneficiaries are.
(29:52):
These are indeed very wealthy individuals who own such stocks and not the majority of the population,
who will ultimately have to pay the bill for the debts.
For now, it is being suggested that the relaxation of the debt brake for military spending and
also the 500 billion for the special fund for infrastructure and climate neutrality could ensure that it costs nothing.
(30:20):
But the repayment of these loans and also the interest must come from the federal budget.
And that means, of course, the question for future generations will be, who pays this back?
And one can also see again that inequality in the country is growing, because the very rich
(30:41):
lend the state money for these armament expenditures and for these other investments.
But ultimately, those who need transfer payments to get by, who rely on the welfare state, which
is fundamentally tied to democracy, as one can see in Article 20, which, alongside Article 1
(31:06):
of the Basic Law, cannot be altered in its principles, will be affected.
And those who will actually have to repay the debts will be the ones whose lives are made even
harder through cuts in the welfare state.
This means that society will continue to fragment, which I believe does not correspond to the
(31:32):
purpose of the Basic Law.
Profits are privatised and debts are socialised.
Yes, that is certainly the conclusion one can draw.
Thank you for joining us at audioarchiv.
Follow us, so you won't miss an episode, and don't forget the like button.
Until next week, your audioarchiv team.
Popular Podcasts
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!