Capitalism will continue generating these problems. The rich will become richer and the poor will become poorer.

Whats astounding is that Germany can only hold hardly on those 8% "underclass" since it spends more than any other nation for social projects. Should spending there decrease than the 8% will skyrocket into a far far higher number.

Politicians even talk about a new class of German "white trash". Discusting how they dare use these degratory terms for our fellow Germans and Volksgenossen.
Make no mistake this class and poverty problem will only be solved with the destruction of capitalism and the installation of a National Socialist Order.

Is Germany Falling into Poverty?

October 17, 2006

By Michael Scott Moore

A new study claims that around 8 percent of all Germans live under the poverty line. Some believe the country is giving birth to an underclass that, unlike the impoverished of previous generations, has completely given up on the future. It's the fiery political debate of the week in Berlin.

When the word poverty drops off the tip of people's tongues here in well-off Germany, it's usually part of a reference to the developing world. But not this week. A leading German politician and a fresh new report have shed new light on poverty problems closer to home.

"Many people call it an underclass problem," Kurt Beck, chairman of Germany's Social Democratic Party (SPD), said in an interview last week. "There are far too many people in Germany who see no more hope of improving their situation."

Beck's use of the word "underclass," sparked a controversy that grew into a full-scale brush fire on Monday after the Social Democrat-aligned Friedrich Ebert Foundation released a study claiming that 6.5 million Germans live in poverty, without much prospect of improving their lot. That's 8 percent of all Germans. Disturbingly, that figure soars to 20 percent in the states that comprised the former East Germany. Those who fell below the poverty line in the study earned an average of just €424 per month.

Germany's national politicians seemed shocked to learn that their nation even had an underclass. Conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel said her government would not tolerate a stark divide between rich and poor. Contradicting the straight-talking leader of his party, which is the junior coalition partner in Merkel's government, SPD Vice Chairman Franz Müntefering said "underclass was an unfortunate term -- since "there are no classes" in Germany.

For decades, Germany was indeed mostly devoid of classes. The social democratic system in West Germany as well as the Communist regime in the East were designed (at least in theory) to buffer Germans from the sharp edges of capitalism during the Cold War. Germans on both sides of the Iron Curtain grew up under some notion of "classlessness." But now that a reunified Germany is struggling to compete in a globalized economy, a divide between rich and poor has developed that no politician from either of the old societies quite knows how to deal with.

"Of course all these kinds of calculations are relative," said Martin Werding, who heads the Department of Social Policy and Labor Markets at the Information and Research Institute (IFO) in Berlin. "What we call 'poor' might sound a bit cynical in comparison to other countries." In its report, the Friedrich Ebert Foundation placed the poverty line at €938 per month, less than 60 percent of the German average.

A penchant for "authoritarian politics"

But technical definitions won't much matter as long as this group of Germans continues to feel disenfranchised -- and the side-effects are already tangible in Germany society. The study comes just a month after frustrated voters sent neo-Nazi politicians to a third German state legislature in the space of two years. The radical right has been rising in Germany along with unemployment -- a fact the Friedrich Ebert study alludes to with a reference to the poor's penchant for "authoritarian politics."

At the same time, though, the German underclass isn't just white: About 24 percent of all immigrants to Germany are poor.

The problem is a fundamental paradox in the German economy. The government gives out huge amounts of aid -- around 30 percent of Germany's gross national product goes into the social safety net. But with unemployment rampant, the sense of security here is unusually low for a European nation. "The danger of being poor is larger here than in other European countries," says Jeppe Fisker Jörgensen, author of a separate study conducted jointly by the Hans-Böckler Foundation and a think-tank called Berlinpolis.

Feigned shock aside, of course, these economic problems aren't really news. Former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder grew deeply unpopular after he set out to reform the German welfare system with a regime of cuts called Hartz IV. The legislation led to deep cuts in benefits for unemployed workers and started to push the long-term unemployed who had been receiving hefty unemployment payments into the less-generous social welfare system. Few would argue that Hartz IV alone is responsible for the increase in poverty, but some say it is compounding the problem.

The National Poverty Conference, an umbrella group comprised of a number of German social and welfare organizations, claims that the number of children in families that fall below the poverty line and receive social welfare payments has almost doubled since Hartz IV was implemented in 2005.

Still, many German politicians are defending the labor market reforms. Wolfgang Thierse, a member of the SPD and a vice president of the German parliament, said that Hartz IV did not cause the problem, it merely made an existing problem more visible.

Growing divide

The split between rich and poor has grown, too. The richest 10 percent of German households own a full 47 percent of the country's privately-held assets -- a rise of around 2 percent since 1998. Meanwhile, workers are falling behind in what they need to know in order to land a job. "Lack of training and long-term unemployment are extreme and typically German problems," said Waltraut Peter, a welfare policy analyst for the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW). "We've known that for a long time."

The problem is a vexing one for politicians, which may explain why they act so shocked when new evidence of it appears. Germans expect generous pension and health-care plans, which raise the price of hiring. That sends corporations elsewhere in search of workers -- to cheaper countries within the European Union, to the former Soviet bloc, or to the Far East -- which raises unemployment, and frustration, in Germany. To fix the problem, Germany would have to lower the cost of doing business by cutting benefits -- which means tightening the belt on an already-frustrated working class.

As old as the story may be, it is still an uncomfortable one in Germany where, even 16 years after reunification, some voters in the eastern states are still not sure they like democracy at all. Members of the new underclass, says Frank Karl, lead author of the Friedrich-Ebert study, "feel like losers ... And the worst part is: When we ask whether they think their children will do any better, most of them say no."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,443075,00.html

Alex,

What do you think of the idea that newly disenfranchised middle class make the best recruits for White nationalism? Not poor people, not happy middle class, but a disenfranchised middle class.

I read some Trotsky and he said that fascism comes from the "petit bourgeouis." Maybe he's right. The working class is too intellectually dull to be of much use other than as street fighters. I know some, and they are all White nationalists when I explain what WN is. But they aren't useful in the political struggle at this point.

Kievsky,

Yes you are correct about the disenfranchised middle class but you should not forget the working class ,or poor people as you called them, too.

The study mentioned above revealed a number of additional things too. First of all German society can be divided into three classes. The upper middle class which has no fears of the future and is materially very well off ,the normal middle class and at last the working class which has been hit by globalization the hardest.

All these classes are further divided into subclasses. Whats more important is that the study also revealed what these people vote and what values they have!

1. The upper middle class could be divided ,the study argues, into liberals and fanatic "free market" people. The liberals having more inclinations to values like solidarity and social justice, while the "free market" types lack any of these. Overall ,the study found out, the entire upper class distance themselves from traditional values and are the most materialistic and individualistic of all.

2. The normal middle class then ,the study argues, could be divided into those who managed to better their material situation ,the winners of new economy, and those who lost ,the disenfranchised middle class.

The disenfranchised middle class has many fears of losing their status and falling down to the third class ,the working class, and is greatly dissapointed by politics and the politicians. They make about 16% of the German population. And one more important fact the study revealed. The disenfranchised middle class reacts more fiercly than any other class with authoritarian and ethnocentric (nationalist) values to possible dangers (to their status).

3. And last but not least the working class. They have the strong traditional and ethnocentric (nationalist) values. Are greatly dissapointed with not only politics but the system in itself. Are more ready than others for radical solutions and are constantely losing any hope for the future. This is the class from which the radical parties (communist and nationalists) get the biggest support. They make about 26% of the german population. About 8% of which are mentioned in the article above as the new German proletariat ,or else named degratory the German "white trash".


To sum it all up. According to the study 45% of the German population belong to the upper middle class ( 19% of them liberals and the rest "free market" fanatics) , 29% normal middle class ( about 16% disenfranchised middle class) and about 26% working class (of which 8% belong to the "modern proletariat").

Here the study, unfortunately only in German: http://www.fes.de/inhalt/Dokumente/061017_Gesellschaft_im_Reformprozess_komplett.pdf

Alex,

Your working class is probably better raw material then ours. Better educated, more conscious of the world, more politically in tune.

Our White working class is very racist -- at least the ones I've met. But they lack any initiative whatsoever, and they do a lot of drugs. They are very nihilistic. They don't believe in any future.

the lack of any education in history and literature is a real problem.

Kievsky,

i dont know if our working class is any better or worse than the American working class. We too have the problems of nihilism and drug abuse etc. But we also have the political organizations and parties which reach at least a part of them and manage to educate and politicise them.

Btw two more news article about the issue:

Debate over mass poverty in Germany

A devastating indictment of the former SPD-Green government

By Ulrich Rippert
20 October 2006

Stark figures from a still unpublished study by the Friedrich Ebert Institute (Friedrich Ebert Stiftung—FES), which has close ties to the Social Democratic Party (SPD), were revealed last weekend. The statistics immediately unleashed a torrent of debate. The FES report bears the headline “Society during the reform process” and makes clear that mass poverty is growing rapidly in Germany.

Eight percent of the population—i.e. 6.5 million people—are forced to live on an average monthly income of 424 euros (US$535) or less. Poverty is growing especially rapidly in the east of the country with up to twenty percent—other reports even speak of 25 percent—of the population living in poverty in the states of what was formerly East Germany (DDR).

Although the study originates from the SPD headquarters, the figures released so far represent a devastating indictment of the seven-year rule by Germany’s former SPD-Green government (1998-2005). This government, led by Gerhard Schröder and Joschka Fischer, was responsible for the most dramatic redistribution of wealth from the less well off to the rich and corresponding social disaster in the history of postwar Germany.

The job market “reforms” introduced by the SPD-Green government created conditions whereby those with relatively well-paid jobs, such as skilled workers, technicians or even engineers, could undergo a rapid descent into poverty should they lose their job. After just twelve or at the most 18 months of regular unemployment benefits, the jobless then become dependent on so-called Unemployment Pay 2, which corresponds to former levels of basic social welfare. At the same time such payments are only made if “need” is identified—i.e. when the unemployed person has expended all of his or her personal savings.

A thoroughly hypocritical debate

Following the publication of some of the FES report’s findings, representatives from Germany’s major political parties quickly expressed their concern and worries. The response to the report in the form of statements of concern and expressions of surprise over the extent of mass poverty in Germany has been characterised by utter cynicism and hypocrisy.

The chairman of the SPD, Kurt Beck, was one of the first to respond. He told the Frankfurter Allgemeinen Sonntagszeitung that he was “deeply concerned” about the emergence of a social “underclass,” which is unable to break out of a vicious circle of inadequate education, unemployment, poverty and frustration. His comments simply ignore the fact that, as the prime minister of the state of Rhineland-Palatinate for many years, Beck played a key role in the SPD executive in developing, defending against criticism and vigorously implementing the party’s so-called “Agenda 2010.”

A response to Beck’s comments came from the head of the conservative parliamentary fraction, Volker Kauder, who fulsomely stressed the importance of a debate over the “new socially deprived class.” He regarded the term “underclass” for such people as inappropriate and strictly rejected it. “This expression stigmatises and ensures that one can no longer reach these people. I prefer to speak of people with social and integration problems,” Kauder continued, and demanded “concrete assistance with integration.”

While politicians were arguing about the term “underclass,” the president of the German Chamber for Industry and Commerce, Ludwig George Braun, intervened in the debate to warn against any increase in social security benefits for the unemployed and the poor. The problem had to be tackled “at the root,” he emphasised and that means “more education and not more social welfare payments.” According to Braun the plight of those condemned to long-term unemployment and poverty has its origins in “an inheritance over decades of bad education.”

In light of the obvious responsibility of the Schröder-Fischer government for this situation, the outgoing chair of the German Trade Union Federation (DGB), Ursula Engelen Kefer, referred to that government’s “misplaced labour policy.” Kefer told German radio that the expansion of 400 euro (US$505) low-wage jobs and so-called “one-man companies” under the SPD and Greens had helped to expand “the low wage sector and poverty.”

Kefer failed to mention, however, that the trade unions had largely supported all the social cuts incorporated in Agenda 2010. Instead she declared that as a member of the SPD’s executive committee she was very pleased that her party was now beginning to address the problem. Another SPD deputy, Otmar Schreiner, who is speaker of the SPD working group for employee issues, made similar comments. He also spoke of a hopeful step being made by the SPD.

Fear of radicalization

In fact, the entire debate is politically farcical because the figures revealed by the FES study—based on what we know so far—are neither new nor surprising. The real reason for the phoney display of concern on the part of the politicians is due to the fact that the political consequences of the social crisis in Germany are increasingly obvious. Broad sections of the working population are turning away from the traditional parties.

Since the start of the “grand coalition” between the Social Democrats and Christian Democrats (CDU) at the end of last year—in fact, a conspiracy against the German working class—the two parties have lost a total of nearly 40,000 members. Since German reunification in 1990 the SPD has lost more than 40 percent of its membership (over 400,000).

In Senate elections held last month in Berlin, the SPD was able to improve its share of the vote by around one percent. However, when one takes into account the drastic decline in voter turnout, the party actually lost 57,718 votes. In elections in the state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania the SPD lost a total of 146,806 votes and in the national elections one year ago a total of 2.3 million votes.

For decades in Germany after the war political stability was guaranteed by a welfare state providing a large degree of social security, watched over by the so-called People’s Parties—the SPD, the Christian Democrats and the Christian Social Union (CSU)—representing a broad variety of political programs. The latest figures over social inequality and mass poverty make clear that this period is finally at an end.

Last year, when the SPD and Greens were still in government, an official report was published on poverty and wealth, which revealed that the proportion of the population officially living below the poverty line had risen from 12.1 percent in 1998 (the start of the government) to 13.5 percent—i.e. every eighth household (around eleven million people). The poverty line is based on those earning less than 60 percent of average income, i.e. under 938 (US$1,185) euros monthly.

A few months later the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) actually estimated the level of poverty at 16 percent—based on statistics from the year 2004—compared to 11.5 percent in 1999. That figure, according to the Institute, increased by half a percent in the course of 2005 alone—to 16.5 percent. And, according to the DIW, the newly incorporated states of the former DDR were even worse off, with poverty rates of 21.5 percent.

At the same time, the concentration of wealth increased at the top of society. The richest ten percent of households control approximately 47 percent of private wealth, an increase of approximately two percent since 1998. Meanwhile the number of indebted households has increased from 2.77 to 3.13 million.

When these figures were made known at the end of last year the main political parties unanimously declared there was no alternative to the existing policies.

Since then the social divisions in Germany have become even more pronounced. The salaries of executive board members of the 30 enterprises listed on the DAX (stock performance index) rose 11 percent last year to an average of three million euros (US$3.8 million). According to a study published by the leading German association of private investors (DSW) earlier this week, the Commerzbank increased the salaries of its executive board members by a staggering 175 percent.

The biggest earners were to be found at the Deutsche Bank, where an ordinary member of the board earns 3.83 million euros (US$4.84 million—an increase of 26 percent), and chief executive Josef Ackermann takes home 8.4 million euros (US$10.6 million)—not including his share options and retirement funds. In second place were executives at the software producer SAP (3.18 million—US$4.02 million), ahead of Daimler Chrysler (nearly 3 million euros—US$3.8 million).

In the case of many companies and banks, these increases for leading executives are the reward for their role in implementing mass redundancies and cuts for their own employees.

The fact is that social decline and the increasing pauperization of ever-broader layers of population is the result of a deliberate policy, which was implemented against fierce popular opposition. Thousands took part in demonstrations and protests against the Agenda 2010 and Hartz IV laws.

Following increasing opposition to its anti-social policies and drastic defeats for the SPD in a series of local elections, chancellor Schröder called early elections with the intention of handing over power to the conservative opposition. Following the creation of the “grand coalition” in the winter of 2005, the SPD subsequently took over key ministries in order to press ahead with the social and welfare cuts embodied in its Agenda 2010 program.

The current debate over increasing social decline and instability does not mean that any change of political course will be undertaken—quite the opposite. Above all, the issue at stake for the ruing elite is how to suppress the anticipated resistance to such policies.

Calls for a strong state

Public confidence in existing political relations is declining rapidly. According to a recent joint report by the Federal Statistical Office and the Federal Centre for Political Education, certain layers of the population are increasingly disappointed with “democracy” and all of the political parties. In a recent poll, just 38 percent of those living in the states of former East Germany regarded democracy as the best system of government.

The report concludes that the state must intensify its intervention with regard to education and job provision. The gaps in the existing social fabric are too large and have to be systematically closed. Any guarantee of state subsidies had to be increasingly coupled to the readiness to work. The arguments employed in the report increasingly make the case for a type of national labour service.

A development arising from the globalization of production, which has already far progressed in many other countries, is now taking affect in Germany—after some delay—and proving to have explosive force. The ruling elite is very conscious of the social implications of such a development and is making the necessary preparations. Working groups have been established in the Ministries of the Interior, Justice and Defence for the purpose of changing the German constitution and permitting the use of the army for domestic interventions “for direct protection against attacks on the foundations of the community.”

The working class must also make a sober evaluation of the changed situation and break with its past social-democratic conceptions in the process of building a new socialist party.

One conclusion is unavoidable from the growth of mass poverty and social polarization: the interests of the broad majority of the population are incompatible with a social order based on private property of the means of production and the nation-state. The social crisis cannot be overcome within the context of existing capitalist relations. Demonstrations and “pressure from down below” are by themselves insufficient to halt the attacks on social and democratic rights. This calls above all for a political movement of the working population, which—completely independently of the SPD, the Left Party and the trade unions—fights for the re-organization of society on a socialist basis.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/oct2006/pove-o20.shtml

20.10.2006

Experts Shed Light on Germany's Poverty and Welfare Woes

New studies in Germany shed light on the twin problems of growing poverty and a deficit in the child-welfare system that could be related. Experts have spoken out on both issues.

Amid an ongoing debate over growing poverty in Germany, a new study shows that millions of needy people in the country are failing to take advantage of state aid.

Among the people cited by the study are some two million employed people who do not receive pay supplements that they are entitled to, a study by the Hans-Böckler Foundation said.

The foundation, which is closely tied to union groups in Germany, said only 7.4 million of some 10 million qualified people actually take advantage of a supplementary payments for working people who earn too little.

Thus, the statistics put out by the German government "only tell half the story about the needy in Germany," the foundation wrote. "These people live in hidden poverty – as do a million children with them."

Most often affected are qualified workers with part-time jobs who are unable to find full-time work, as well as families with three or more children. In addition, there are 1.5 million households whose full-time pay nonetheless fails to cover their needs.

Experts respond to child deaths

On Wednesday, another study came out that sheds light on the plight of impoverished children in Germany.

Amid reports of the unrelated deaths of two young children who died of mistreatment after they slipped through the child-welfare net, a study by social scientist Klaus Hurrelman estimated there are some 80,000 neglected children living in Germany today.

About one percent of all German parents are completely outside of the social norms – they are severe alcoholics, drug addicts, or have serious psychological problems, the researcher told Die Zeit newspaper. Their children -- generally between the ages of one and ten -- live under the constant threat of catastrophe, he warned.

Government measures called for

Hurrelman also noted that 15 percent of all parents have other serious problems with child rearing. In some cases this is due to poverty or simply poor parenting practices. He suggested the state take a more interventionist role – for example by tying the payment of child-rearing supplements to regular medical checkups for children.

"You don't get very far with these people if you make action voluntary," he said.

As the whirlwind of media controversy over the deaths of the two children continued, Bavarian Premier Edmund Stoiber said he did not want to wait for the federal government to take measures to improve child welfare. Rather, some states – like Bavaria – should quickly move toward implementing measures of their own, Stoiber told a cabinet meeting in Munich earlier this week.

Among other things, the state was checking into making regular medical checkups for children mandatory instead of voluntary. The state's minister for social welfare, Christa Stewens, said she would present concrete suggestions next month.

This would be a good move because "in many cases, neglect and abuse can be recognized" in a medical checkup, he said. He also called on society to change its attitudes, and "stop looking away from indications of child abuse."

On Monday, the state of Saxony said it plans to implement an early-warning system for children in problem families.

Democracy in danger?

Finally, an expert on right-wing extremism looked at the poverty discussion from a political angle, saying he was concerned that a growing social underclass could have grave consequences for democracy.

In an interview with the German press agency dpa, Michael Seberich, an extremism expert at the Bertelsmann Foundation, said election analysis shows that people who "have given up on the idea that politicians can help them in any way" either tend not to vote at all, or vote for extremist parties.

German democracy could suffer in the long term if too many people fall into this category, Seberich said.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2208542,00.html