German Politics Thread

Today ends the NSU-trial, one of the most important trials in post-war Germany. As someone who has followed the process with a lot of interest, I am glad to see it reaching a conclusion. While some question remain - and will likely remain due to the silence of the culprits - I hope that the sentences will reflect the grave nature of the crimes.

https://www.google.de/amp/www.anews.com.tr/middle-east/2018/07/11/germanys-neo-nazi-theater-comes-to-an-end-at-nsu-trial-1531272610/amp

Edited by Zarastro on Jul 11th 2018 at 2:18:18 PM

Hopefully, this will have consequences for the idiots whose screw-ups let the NSU run wild for so long.

Verdict's Out: Life Sentence.

Well, Seehofer is in trouble again, but I am not happy about the reason...so, remember he is interior minister for Germany (why? Why can't we get someone competent in this job at least once? Please!) and he actually "celebrated" his 69 birthday by mentioning that 69 failed asylum seekers had been deported to Kabul. One of them is now dead. Suicide.

For context, while deportation to Afghanistan are possible they are supposed to happen only in the case of criminals or people which are deemed dangerous, so the victim wasn't some innocent young guy but a failed asylum seeker who had committed serious crimes in Germany (drug charges and serious assault). Nevertheless while deportation is something which is seen as necessary, it is not something one should gloat about, especially not if the destination is f... Kabul.

Edited by Swanpride on Jul 11th 2018 at 12:57:51 PM

Fuck Seehofer. Fuck the CSU. And fuck the CDU for enabling them.

Reading all the comments on Spiegel, Zeit et al. I am surprised how many people apparantly do not know the meaning of a life sentence in Germany. Way too many seem to think that it means you will be automatically released after 15 years, or that you can even be released after 2/3 of the sentence for good behaviour.

In truth, I'm not really sure about the meaning of life sentences anywhere. So in Germany, is it a minimum of 15 years (with potential for extension), and eligibility for parole if the convict isn't considered dangerous? Sorry if this sounds stupid, just curious.

Edited by Snipertoaster on Jul 13th 2018 at 3:30:53 PM

In her case, the special gravity of the crime was noted by the court, which bumps the minimum to 17 years and ups the ante for getting out in probation after that.

But yeah, 15 years served and *then* (assuming you've been an ideal inmate and there are no greater concerns for safety etc) you *might* get parole.

Yes. In practice that means that people actually can get a live-long sentences in the literal sense, dying in prison after 50 years and more. That's usual serial killers or murders which were particularly vile and obvious lack empathy. It's a pretty small group overall though. A lot of incidents in which someone killed someone else aren't categorized as "murder" in the first place (ie when it happened in affect), but once it is categorized as murder, the 15 years are non-negotiable, and after that a LOT depends on what you actually did and how big the chance is that you do it again.

The goal of German prisons is to redeem people, not to punish them to no end, but that doesn't mean that we don't put away dangerous people away for good if there is no other option.

Edited by Swanpride on Jul 13th 2018 at 8:07:42 AM

So the CSU is really sliding down in the polls...they are far, far away from the absolute majority they are used to. And interestingly, it is not even the Af D which is the big winner as a result...no, it's the greens and the Freien Wähler (Free Voters).

Considering how the CSU alienated about all of their more moderate voters it isn't really that surprising. What does surprise me though is that the SPD doesn't get more 'votes', although this could be explained by them being in the coalition and not even having attempted to stop Seehofer in any way.

Basically, their motto of "right of the CSU is the wall" is backfiring spectacularly.

I think the SPD would get more votes if not for the "Freie Wähler"...frankly, looking into the party, I am kind of jealous...a centrist party which has "we don't vote along party lines" as a general rule? Which is liberal in social issues, conservative in economic issues but also ready to fight for environmental matters? Sign me up! (Unless the actual personell is terrible....).

As a rule of thumb, be wary of anything that seems too good to be true.

Sure...and if I could vote for the party, I would take a good look at them before making a decision...but for the standard voter? That sounds exactly like the kind of party they would move towards if they are p... of with the CSU because it moved too far to the right but aren't quite ready to vote SPD or Greens just yes either. Especially since a number of Bavarians cities already have a major from the Freien Wähler.

The bigger one's also have a lot of SPD Mayors. The CSU's strength lies in the countryside

I know. But we are currently talking about CSU voters which are looking for a new home. Between the CSU and the SPD, there is still the Freie Wähler in terms of political leaning.

Edited by Swanpride on Jul 19th 2018 at 7:16:55 AM

Ah yes, the 'marginalized communities have a right to exist so long as the economic systems keeping them in poverty are maintained' parties.

Truly, the most inspired, enlightened stance of all.

What exactly does "conservative" mean in this context? Full blown lolbertarian Austrian school stuff? Austerity? Privatization? Corporate tax cuts and deregulation?

Edited by M84 on Jul 19th 2018 at 10:51:02 PM

I think you and me have a very different idea what being conservative regarding economic issues means…

remember, it was the conservatives which installed social economy in German....

In a German context being conservative in economic issues means in its basics simply "Social economy, with some privatization where it makes sense (or some sort of privatization/state control hybrid) and state control where it doesn't". Also balancing the books while thinking long term. Ie investing in free education for everyone is actually a conservative approach in this mind-set, because in the long term investing in young people results in higher tax revenue down the line - at least this is my interpretation of conservative economics.

The party for deregulation is the FDP, not necessarily the conservatives (though there are naturally always conservatives which slip too far down the company point of view, which is part of the problem with the CSU).

One has to understand that the economy is considered very important in German politics.

Edited by Swanpride on Jul 19th 2018 at 7:57:40 AM

I mean yeah, they installed a social economy because it was preferable to revolution.

This doesn't make them enlightened minds, it makes them pragmatists who realized they couldn't get away with fucking people over quite as hard as everybody else.

Edited by math792d on Jul 19th 2018 at 5:03:13 PM

Whut? Are you talking about Bismarck? I don't. I am talking about the post-war system of social economy which was first formulated by Müller-Armack and implemented under Adenauer by then Minister for Economics (and later chancellor, though he was a way better minister) Ludwig Erhard. And no, they didn't do it because they feared revolution - as if anyone was still in a mood for a fight after 1945 - they did it because they felt that combining the freedom of the market with social balance would be the best way to rebuilt Germany. And they were right.

Meanwhile the SPD were fighting the phrase...I think they only adopted the notion after Reunification. Though their actual politics adopted most of the principles with time.

So yes, in Germany the notion of a Social economy is connected with the CDU, NOT the SPD. And our actual leftists are big on state control in pretty much everything which is just...urgh. We have seen in the GDR how well their ideas work (remember Die Linke over here is basically the follow up of the SED).

Edited by Swanpride on Jul 19th 2018 at 8:35:32 AM

It is difficult to appreciate how much the social market economy has changed the German mind set. If you read Erhard's Wohlstand für Alle, you'll likely see it as trivial amd merely stating the obvious on many issues. Back then it was groundbreaking. Erhard's tenure as chancellor is nowadays (rightfully) deemed as a joke, and he certainly is one of the best examples for the Peter principle. But he was nevertheless one of Germany's most influential post-war politicians.

Isn't this pretty much what I just said? One should never underestimate how much good he did for Germany - as minister. He wasn't really cut for the job as a chancellor. His legacy might still be the most important any Germany politician ever left.

And he was a conservative politician. So when a German talks about a conservative approach to economics, that is usually what is meant.

Of course, I just wanted to stress it because I found it really striking when I found out how Germans thought economy works or should work at the time.

To clarify for the non-German readers here: The whole idea of German economy is built around the idea of free competition BUT under the umbrella of a state which levels the playing field. So instead of simply deregulating, the role of the state is supposed to ensure that a healthy competition happens in which small companies have the ability to challenge larger company with better products. It is naturally difficult to realize this perfectly (especially with the big concerns from overseas going into the market), but as a principle it actually works surprisingly well because it encourages companies to compete on the one hand, while ideally preventing them to take over the market (and hence control) on the other hand. This system is part of the reason why Germany does so well in export, the constant competition encourages companies to invest in research and development, while the state ensures the have the set-up to thrive. It naturally also helps that the workers have their say in the big German companies.

Or, to put it differently, while liberal economy just wants to put two teams on the football pitch trusting that they will play fair and communists regimes want to dictate which team makes how many goals (yes, literally, look up the history of Dynamo Dresden), Social economy in the German sense equals putting a referee on the pitch...but naturally there will always be mistakes made, judgements discussed and everyone struggles against the introduction of VAR.

Edited by Swanpride on Jul 19th 2018 at 9:14:02 AM