The Alternative for Germany (AfD) has gained ground in three recent state elections, caused an uproar in the Thuringian parliament and triggering another debate on whether to ban the party outright.
You must log in or register to comment.
FINALLY. And to everyone who is like “tHiS wiLl MaKe ThInGs WorSe!!11” or “bAnNiNg ThE pArTy WoN’t hElP”. SHUT THE FUCK UP.
These are LITERALLY Nazis. Even more than the US Trump-Rep’s.
And since Russia is not willing to throw 25 Million People on them again and is much more keen to join them, since they are heavily involved with the AFD:
-https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/putin-afd-zusammenarbeit-100.html
-https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/petr-bystron-afd-russland-100.html
-https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2024/kw15-de-aktuelle-stunde-russland-afd-997398
-https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2024-04/afd-russische-regierung-strategiepapier
I’m not willing to take any chance on that. We have Laws for EXACTLY this scenario, time for our government to grow a spine and starts protecting democracy!
We did it once, we can do it again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Reich_Party
If discourse and argument fail to quell the intolerant, a tolerant society must be willing to use censorship and even violence to defend itself. If we let them trample all over our values, tolerating them for the sake of being the “better person”, we’ll be the better corpse sooner rather than later and history will remember us “Look how nobly they did nothing!”
If our history is ever written, that is.
If simply banning nazis from holding political power is enough for some of you to question, then you’re really not going to be ready for what you need to do to them once they get political power. Ban them now because y’all are far too soft to do what needs to be done if you don’t.
Don’t know what’s there to be so smug about. “Oh you would rather ban them in a constitutional process than to wait for them to seize power and fight a bloody civil war, or worse?” Yes please! I hope we all much prefer the first option.
I hope we all much prefer the first option.
Some of us are convinced this measure does nothing, and are unwilling to fight. It seems they only seem to oppose fascism when it can be done by magic.
Some of us are convinced this measure does nothing
Nothing? How can it do nothing? You could argue that it doesn’t do enough or not the right things, but if nothing else banning the party would obviously keep them out of the government at least for the next few years.
I dont know, you’d have to ask someone who believes that.
How can it do nothing?
If you pass a law but never enforce it, the law does nothing. That’s assuming the Parliament could even pass it in a government that’s thick with AfD MPs.
That rather speaks for banning the AfD though. We have a law for banning fascist parties, so we should enforce it, or it truly would mean nothing.
That rather speaks for banning the AfD though.
We have a law for banning fascist parties
You have laws for banning use of symbols of unconstitutional and terrorist organizations. These have been deployed most aggressively against Communists, Socialists, Islamists, and - post USSR - against Russian Nationalists. Currently, it is pro-Palestinian Jews who suffer the most from application of these laws.
The AfD is that its being fueled by a ton of right-wing media. It isn’t just a party springing from the soil ex nihilio. It is a consequence of right wing press flooding German society. And as the press builds support for the AfD, the AfD helps shield these press organs from censorship by the state. Its a self-replicating trend.
Can you ban a party that’s got a plurality of seats in the Parliament? Or will they be the ones banning you?
I mean, by all means, feel free to give it a shot. But it seems like you’re asking an elected government to do a thing it isn’t designed to do. MPs aren’t going to vote against themselves.
Can you ban a party that’s got a plurality of seats in the Parliament? Or will they be the ones banning you?
Of course. And it’s nonsensical to claim we cannot ban them, while worrying they could ban us. We can and we should, based on what you yourself wrote:
If you pass a law but never enforce it, the law does nothing.
We have laws against undemocratic parties, so we should enforce them.
I mean, by all means, feel free to give it a shot. But it seems like you’re asking an elected government to do a thing it isn’t designed to do.
But it is designed to do exactly that. That’s like a core mechanism of our democracy.
The only way to argue we shouldn’t ban the AFD is if you claim that they somehow should be exempt from our mechanisms against fascism. They were enforced before, they will be enforced again. And the AFD fits the bill in every way.
Those of us are wrong, then. Fascism isn’t some inherently abstract force of nature, it’s people and organizations of people. Those social structures can be disrupted, and the major question whose answer determines the means of disruption is whether the earlier responses were appropriately timed and powered.
I prefer the situation where fascist-attitude people are individuals who need treatment rather than one where fascism is not just an attitude of individuals but a structural problem requiring e.g. law enforcement involvement or even a full-societal issue requiring outside military involvement.
Ban them now
They won’t, in no small part because the AfD has enough seats to block the attempt. Also, doesn’t help that lots of the enforcement wing of the German government (particularly in the national security services) are AfD or AfD sympathetic.
We’re well past the point at which Germans can do to the fascists what they did to the communists back in the 1990s - ban the party outright and seize their assets. Now they’ve actually got to make this a political fight, rather than a legalistic one, because they turned their backs on the AfD for far too long.
They won’t, in no small part because the AfD has enough seats to block the attempt.
They cannot block a decision of the federal constitutional court, don’t be ridiculous. Germany has measures in place exactly for this scenario, and they are about to be enforced. They cannot be vetoed away, it’s a legal matter.
They cannot block a decision of the federal constitutional court
Given the concentration of AfD in the Eastern Block, you’d be inviting the region to pull a Catalonia and threaten to break away.
Germany has measures in place exactly for this scenario
Riot police, sure.
Ooh the Nazis are threatening to break away? Oh no! Whatever will we do without them?!
Fuck them. They can break away and start their own little fourth Reich, which will be a pariah forever. In fact, that’s even better - all the fascists can go to the same geographical location so we can deal with them surgically.They’re free to pull a Catalonia tbh. Glhf without Solizuschlag. It’d also be nice to have my friends move back home from Berlin.
Banning the party isn’t going to help.
Like I say of Trump, the AfD isn’t the problem, they’re a symptom. Conservatism and conservatives themselves are the problem – the question is how should we deal with them, and I really don’t know the answer to that.
Edit: just to clarify, I’m not saying the AfD shouldn’t be banned, just that banning the party won’t change the people who vote for it and run it.
There won’t be democracy in Germany if the AfD gets into power. You need to stop the wound from gushing before you can worry about setting the broken bone.
100% Correct. These are Nazis just like they are depicted in textbooks.
I don’t disagree with that sentiment at all, I’m just not sure how to set this particular broken bone. How do you make ~20% of the population less fascist?
You stop allowing the lies and disinformation to spread, that’s how!
Germany did it after WWII. They can do it again.
Did they do it, though? Eg. the BfV (Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the domestic intelligence agency) and BKA (Federal Criminal Bureau, the federal investigative police) are somewhat notorious for having a bit of a neo-Nazi problem, and they’re not the only German federal or state entities with the same issue (see eg. this article about the BfV and BKA. Edit: PBS report about neo-Nazi infiltration in German security forces).
It’s not an uncommon view that denazification wasn’t entirely successful. Hell, they even have a word for the sort of rushed “washing clean” of Nazi officials that was done: Persilschein, “Persil ticket” (Persil is a detergent brand).
I’d argue that if denazification had really succeeded, the AfD and others like it wouldn’t be as much of an issue.
“Not entirely successful” and “not 30% of the population” are two very different things.
I’d be inclined to think that going from 30% to 20% is worse than “not entirely successful” (assuming AfD voters in general are at the very least somewhat sympathetic to fascist views, which really doesn’t seem like an unfair assumption)
20% is still better than 30%. Less momentum in the movement; more chance of discouraging others from pursuing it.
deleted by creator
You can’t, but Germany has always had at least 20% nazis and fascists all throughout its post war history.
Up till recently, they didn’t vote, or voted conservative, because there was no other option. So they didn’t actually threaten democracy all that much.
Banning the AfD won’t reduce the number of fascists, but it will close one avenue they have for destroying the state.
There is a difference between conservatism and being a threat to the democratic order. Germany has conservative parties that are perfectly valid, it’s just that the AfD is not one of them.
Killing the head of a terrorist organization won’t help if you don’t fix the underlying issues.He will be replaced in short order, usually by someone worse. Likewise this kind of political movement.
What the left in Europe (well in my country at least) still doesn’t understand is that they’re not going to fix this by lecturing the populist voters about how all their thoughts and ideas are wrong.
I agree, that this move is mostly about getting some time and deeper issues still need to be addressed. However, by law, if the party is banned so are followup parties.
What the left in Europe (well in my country at least) still doesn’t understand is that they’re not going to fix this by lecturing the populist voters about how all their thoughts and ideas are wrong.
I do not agree with this sentiment though. Because for a big part their thoughts and ideas are just wrong (e.g. scientific denial (like climate or vaccinations) or hate against certain groups). We cannot say ‘well they have a point’ when they simply don’t have shit.
I agree with you that there’s no need to pretend fascists have a valid point. But those who would reason with them fail to understand that fascists are beyond caring whether they have a valid point or not. They are simply determined to have things their way. While we try to educate fascists about where they’re mistaken, they will smirk and load their guns. To them it’s funny that others are so stuck on argument when you can just use violence to get what you want. They see this attachment to argument as weakness and stupidity, and they know what to do with the weak and stupid.
That said, whether banning the party would help depends on how committed their voters are to the fascist cause, and I’m not familiar with the scene in Germany. Maybe if there are many who are just disgruntled but not particularly committed, putting obstacles in the party’s way could buy time to turn them away. But people get sucked in quickly because fascist groups know how to make people feel they belong, pander to their egos, and rapidly program their prejudices while persuading them everyone else is lying. It has cultish aspects, so there has to be a plan for how to deprogram people from a cult.
As long as it is a political party it is entitled to double digit millions every year in state party financing.
If it is forbidden, it cannot be refounded with the same people and ideology and their wealth is seized.
It ia not comparable to “terrorist” organizations, that dont need to abide by some rules of the dominant order in order to be active.
The democratic system should not actively finance and aid those who want to destroy it.
Finally the ideology is legitimised every time it can be voted for legally, as it shows the ideology to be considered part of the acceptable political plurality
Killing the head of a terrorist organization won’t help if you don’t fix the underlying issues.
And yet we don’t allow terrorist organizations to campaign for office, officially and supported by tax money, in our societies.
There is a difference between conservatism and being a threat to the democratic order.
I’m not sure I agree. More and more it’s started seeming like they’re generally just waiting for a moment to drop their masks; eg. here in Finland now that we have a fully right wing government, our “fiscally conservative” party started their term off by limiting the right to strike, and is now echoing extremist right wing talking points about eg. immigration, LGBT+ people, and the environment. They were OK with an extremist right wing minister leaving us out of Ukraine’s “Alliance for Gender-Responsive and Inclusive Recovery” because the plan mentioned LGBT+ people, and they stood in the way of banning abusive LGBT+ “conversion therapy” even though they claimed to be against it back when they still had to be in a government with leftist parties (sorry, couldn’t find an English source for this but here is one in Finnish. For translation I’d suggest DeepL, it’s vastly superior to eg. Google). They are also blaming the opposition for “besmirching” Finland’s reputation abroad, meaning they don’t want anyone pointing out that we have literal neo-Nazis in the government and parliament.
Valid for democracy, but not valid for the problems we’re facing (i.e. most importantly climate-change)
Banning the party isn’t going to help.
Yes it will. It’ll mean it won’t be standing in elections, and that’s only fair because it’s an anti-democratic party… and it will deprive its members of broad protections afforded to parties and remove a unifying banner for them.
Banning anti-democratic institutions in a democracy is not only justified, it is conducive to the democracy’s survival. It lifts the bar for getting rid of democracy to be equivalent to not winning in an election but by establishing a second monopoly on violence, a far greater threshold and attempts at which are more straightforward to deter, prosecute and stamp out than being within every TikTok user’s first few swipes.
There’s nothing that prevents AfD voters from going to other parties, there’s plenty, or to voice their concerns in a new party that can be a legitimate part of the democratic system. Changing parties isn’t like banning a religion or a creed or a race, a party is hardly more than just a banner, the power of which can change between and during elections, at any time, through a simple act of the mind. Banning the party will absolutely help.
It sends a good message. It doesn’t send a message of wanting the silence the concerns of those who voted for the AfD in anything but the short term, it sends the message of ‘we hear you, but try again… a bit less fascist-y please’.
Note that I’m not saying the AfD shouldn’t be banned, just that banning it won’t make the people who vote for it and run it any less, well, fascist.
There’s nothing that prevents AfD voters from going to other parties, there’s plenty, or to voice their concerns in a new party that can be a legitimate part of the democratic system. Changing parties isn’t like banning a religion or a creed or a race, a party is hardly more than just a banner, the power of which can change between and during elections, at any time, through a simple act of the mind. Banning the party will absolutely help.
And that’s the thing; because the people who support AfD won’t change just because their party gets banned, how likely do you think it is that they’ll realize they need to be a legitimate part of a democratic system instead of what they’ve been doing all along?
banning it won’t make the people who vote for it and run it any less, well, fascist.
Correct. But it’s no supposed to do that. Banning a fascist party doesn’t solve every problem of a divided society, but it prevents the worst (a fascist party seizing power) and gives us time (and the chance!) to solve some of the others.
There’s basically no other option. Either a society has effective rules against fascism in place or it will stand idly by while being undermined. And if it has these effective rules, it must abide by them. ‘Fascists should not be allowed to rule the country’ seems to be a reasonable lower limit.
There will always be a subsection og the population that adheres to fascist ideas. For a liberal democracy to function, these ideas have to be ostracized to make sure that no fascist party can establish itself in a major way. Some far-right voters will vote for minor far-right parties, some will vote for more moderate conservative parties and some won’t vote at all. The key is to keep them from uniting while appearing moderate enough to win over some more moderate voters.
In Thailand they ban the major progressive party after nearly every election. Usually they’ve already formed another party even before the ban comes down. Often the party leaders are excluded but it doesn’t achieve much and creates the perception that they’re persecuted.
In Germany, political parties have been banned successfully, both the far-right Socialist Reich Party and the far-left Communist Party. While successor parties were formed, these were less extreme, at least in public, and less successful.
While the AfD is bigger than either of these parties, it still doesn’t poll any higher than 20%. Furthermore, polls indicate that the vast majority of those who don’t support the AfD, believe it shouldn’t be anywhere near power. No other party in Germany receives that level of rejection from those who don’t support it.
If you tried to ban a party with wider appeal, it would probably fail, but with the AfD it may succeed.
Banning AfD is the best short term solution, it needs to be followed by a stronger social focus of the government.
One reason for conservative and right-wing sentiment is fear of the future in the populace. Fear causes people to try to isolate themselves from “others” and wanting to horde and protect their stuff instead of supporting others.
If the government is able to alleviate those fears, they will not see a need for fear anymore. But that is a long process, which constantly gets sabotaged by commercial outrage media, foreign intervention, social media, conservative/right-wing politicians, etc.
Banning a party has significant affects on far-right organizations and money-streams. Much of their propaganda will become impossible to finance and any successor parties are automatically banned as well. Fascist voters cannot become disillusioned without a ban. Their beliefs are as solid as a flat-earther or anti-vaxer and only destroying their echo chamber has a chance to take them out.
And that’s a symptom of media and social media echo chambers.
Like I stated in another comment banning them won’t be a solution but it will harm them and the fascist movement (just cutting their funding will do a lot).
But yes there’s a bigger problem with the growing right-wing tendencies in the society that needs more than this to be addressed
Far-right parties’ main goal is excluding people from society so they should be fully okay when they’re the ones being excluded.
As an aside, I can’t be the only one annoyed by the choice to expand “AfD” to “Alternative for Germany” instead of “Alternative for Deutschland” right? I really think the best solution to this is that we all agree that AfD should fuck off into oblivion. Sound good? Great!
Alle Artikel über Deutschland sollten auf Deutsch verfasst sein. Wenn Sie etwas über Deutschland erfahren möchten, lernen Sie Deutsch.
while I appreciate the the iel jokes, this is the wrong subject. Nothing to laugh about piece of rotting shit Nazis.
Removed by mod
Your reading comprehension is non-existent.
Removed by mod
You’re not replying to the original comment poster
Removed by mod
Please. People say they’re too big now, but there has to be a right size. In Canada, at least, hate groups are always too popular and established to challenge, or too small to bother with.
Zero? Yep, that seems like the right size.
Lol, that’s not the best wording on my part. Right size to shut them down.
NeveragainBanning one of the the biggest democratic parties to save democracy.
I wonder how that would go. It’s the paradox that you have to be intolerant to intolerance.
There is no paradox.
Tolerance is a social contract that both guides and protects your actions. If you breach that contract by being a cunt then you are no longer afforded it’s protections for the same.
Nazis demand you accept them while demonising others and will continue to take advantage of you being “tolerant” for as long as you allow it.
one the biggest parties
FTFY, there is nothing remotely democratic about those people.
They are not a democratic party
Google paradox of tolerance.
Anybody can come to the party as long as you bring your own beer.
The AfD brought crack.
We banned the fascist party in my country for 20 years. It accounted something like 55-60 % of the votes, back in the day.
It didn’t work well.
Which country? What happened when they tried?
Argentina. Peronism got proscribed for ~20 years (1955-1973). It’s a lot more complicated than that cause it actually was fascist vs conservatives*.
Ellected governments had little to no real power cause +50% of the people were not allowed to vote, so the faction that started winning power was the military. Every excuse was a good one to take down the government and bring up another dictatorship.
*refined fascists
I’m not sure we can call Peronism fascist. While it was populist and nationalistic, it’s missing that hallmark blood-and-soil (this land for our bloodline) aspect that really marks out fascist ideologies.
You can’t really call yourself fascist if you’re trying to say all your people are equal, you need to be trying to establish some sort of hierarchical order where these citizens are always better than those citizens.
You getting downvoted shows how hypocrite the internet collective is. Democracy for everyone unless they don’t like the result.
The last time they tried to ban a party in Germany was the NPD (another Nazi party) and at the end the Supreme Court decided the reason not to ban them, even though they were clearly unconstitutional , was because they were to few/insignificant (in the end they banned them from receiving party funding which still has a massive effect).
So you couldnt ban them because they were to small and you can’t ban the AfD because they’re to big? Just because enough people vote for a party doesn’t mean they’re not unconstitutional.
deleted by creator
We, Germans, cannot allow 30 Jan 1933 to 08 May 1945 to repeat itself. Also, the communists in “Die Linke” can go straight to hell with the neo-Nazis.
What are you talking about lol
History moron and there are plenty of idiots that would allow it to repeat itself.
Fuck you trying to separate the left. That’s what happened last time and that’s what didn’t work last time.
Nah, Russia’s fuckbuddys can go straight to hell regardless of their political side.
Didn’t they largely leave to join the BSW querfront? I actually don’t know the numbers, but at least some of the more prominent RF aligned people left the Left.
Tankies are not communists
Isn’t there a lot of dirt on them? Starting with pushing for more strict laws against foreign influence and funding, covert fascism, and then dragging them (and anybody else akin to them) through courts until they are non-existent is how it should have been done a long time ago imho. Just a cold, inorganic machine of beaurocracy grinding them into a ground meat without any possible objection due to biases.
or sell thüringen and bayern to the lowest bidder…would work for me.
LOL! The damn Austrians would snap up Bayern. As far as Thüringen goes, break it up equally for the neighboring provinces to govern.
Exactly what we need: more social division. Good job.
The nazis thought they did a great job uniting society, but then again so did Stalin and Mao.
Social division is quite the euphemism for racism.
a the centrist has appeared. leftists, nazis…same thing.
Sorry for not condemning roundabout 15,5 Million people by default. You’re making it seriously easy for yourself.
But keep throwing labels to void others’ arguments. Reminds me of far right methods.
A ban is incredibly hard. Not impossible, but hard. And even if, it won’t solve the actual problem. The AfD maintained the image of a protest party and to this day people believe this crap. A great way to cut their votes in half would be educating the population so they understand that protest is good but voting for fascist scum is not.
A ban is incredibly hard. Not impossible, but hard.
Not in Germany. Spreading Nationalist or Nazi-adjacent views is a crime in Germany. the AfD not only should be banned, but many of those those involved in it should be arrested and face criminal charges for spreading Nazism. It’s literally just a matter of enforcing the law.
And even if, it won’t solve the actual problem.
It’ll solve a large part of the problem.
A great way to cut their votes in half would be educating the population so they understand that protest is good but voting for fascist scum is not.
Germany is extremely highly educated. If you want to send a message to Nazis, start throwing them in prison until the rest get the message and fuck off.
Good.
Too little, too late. You can’t ban a 30% party and expect democracy to hold.
Of course you can.
The last time they tried to ban a party in Germany was the NPD (another Nazi party) and at the end the Supreme Court decided the reason not to ban them, even though they were clearly unconstitutional , was because they were to few/insignificant (in the end they banned them from receiving party funding which still has a massive effect).
So you couldnt ban them because they were to small and you can’t ban the AfD because they’re to big? Just because enough people vote for a party doesn’t mean they’re not unconstitutional.
You can’t let Nazis exist and expect democracy to hold.
Very noble, but we are at an inconsistency here. Democracy is also incompatible with not allowing people to vote. We have to get a better solution or this will explode in our faces.
So, for the sake of argument, if AfD is banned would they not just became a paramilitary group?
What’s to stop them from devolving into something more ‘nefarious’ if they are stripped of political power?
What stoped the kpd? Or the groups that wanted to rebuild the NSDAP? Would you rather have them pull the strings instead? I mean yea a ban could be dangerous, but letting them take over the justice system, the finances and police of Germany seems like a horrible second option.
Oh I’m not advocating for letting them remain in a position of political influence.
I’m asking what mechanisms beyond simply banning them will need to be implemented? I’m thinking banning them is only a bandage solution.
Well there are mechanisms that should keep Nazis in check. Unfortunately these positions in the police and secret service are full of Nazis :). We’ll see
The ease with which they can build such structures would go down. Building while hiding is harder than building while not having to hide.
Having central coordination, for example in the form of a party or some other form of organization, means that strategic goals can be planned for and resources acquired and allocated in a more efficient manner. The previous bigger neonazi party, the NPD, fulfilled that role for quite a while.
Organizations and people are not that interchangeable for these purposes. Workflows, institutional memory, leadership all matter. That’s why targeted assassinations of leadership even in cell-like structures can meaningfully disrupt e.g. terrorist organizations’ effectiveness. Similar things can be accomplished by simply disrupting business-as-usual.
I’m guessing they’d still be under observation after they get banned because of exactly that and I also think there’s steep step between political engagement and serious criminal activity.
But that gets decided by a court and as a German I think the judiciary is the most trustworthy of the three powers. I think if it even comes to that they deal with the motion in a sensitive way.
I am not a German, so I appreciate you explaining that to me. As an American I’d love to say the same about our judiciary.
