Summary
German lawmakers are debating whether to pursue a ban on the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), but many fear the move could backfire ahead of the Feb. 23 national election.
The proposal, backed by 124 lawmakers, seeks a court review of whether the AfD is unconstitutional.
Critics, including Chancellor Olaf Scholz, warn a failed attempt could strengthen the party, which is polling at 20%.
The debate underscores concerns over the AfD’s extremism but also the risks of fueling its anti-establishment narrative.
Politico is owned by the German equivalent of Murdoch who are actively promoting the AfD across all their media by the way.
Yes ban them on historical grounds at the very lesst
Welp, their inability to make a decision almost ensures they will follow the same technocratic/autocratic path as the US.
Who’d have thought the thing to kill democracy would be Admin rights being tantalizing to techbros as a stand in for authoritarianism.
technocratic
I was unaware this was a feature of society unique to the political far right.
technocracy != Elon Musk as president
technocracy is when you have political scientists and engineers as politicians, not billionaires and lawyers.
In common usage, I’d argue it just means a society which is run by technology rather than people, which everyone is trying to do these days.
That might be what people think the word means when they first hear it, but that doesn’t mean we should use it that way.
Well if you actually want to communicate with others outside of academia, you’re going to have to get used to attempting to understand people rather than constantly trying to “fix” them.
So we should just do away with definitions, and go with whatever people think a word means the first time they hear it? Why?
If one person or a few people have a definition wrong, that’s a thing that can be corrected.
If the majority of people think that’s the definition, and it’s been that way for decades, then you have the definition wrong.
The point is that you have to make a good faith effort for communication to be possible, which you are not doing here. Language evolves organically, not by the dictate of a legally mandated authority.
“I just can’t decide whether or not to get rid of the Nazis. It’s not like anything bad happened before…”
And as we all remember, when the Nazi Party was banned 100 years ago, the problem was solved, just like that, and nothing at all happened afterwards.
It was solved for decades. Sorry it wasn’t solved for an infinity number of years like you think it should have been.
I’m talking about the Beer Hall Putsch. Not the end of WW2, as that would 80 years ago.
Okay, and the Nazi party got outlawed after WWII and things seemed to do well for most of those 80 years.
Do you think that was because of the ban on the NSDAP or because of the unconditional surrender, execution of influential personnel and subsequent occupation of Germany?
I think that there were no Nazis left to run the party by the 1980s and Germany was still fine.
Not like anything bad happened last time Germany started banning political parties…
I mean, I would ban them in a heartbeat, but I get their caution.
What was the difference last time? I’m sure you know.
Didn’t you know that there’s very fine people on both sides?
I thought most Germans disagreed with that, but apparently not enough.
More than half of Germany has no issue working with Nazis
https://www.yahoo.com/news/survey-narrow-majority-germans-support-114418390.html
I guess German schools did not try hard enough teaching kids history.
“Should we ban the Nazi party?”
The world is an onion article
Short memory.
Ban them unflinchingly and completely.
Well, what happened last time you guys let this happen? Maybe do the opposite of that.
In political science, a reactionary or a reactionist is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante—the previous political state of society—which the person believes possessed positive characteristics that are absent from contemporary society. As a descriptor term, reactionary derives from the ideological context of the left–right political spectrum. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore a status quo ante.
As an ideology, reactionism is a tradition in right-wing politics; the reactionary stance opposes policies for the social transformation of society, whereas conservatives seek to preserve the socio-economic structure and order that exists in the present. In popular usage, reactionary refers to a strong traditionalist conservative political perspective of a person opposed to social, political, and economic change.
Reactionary ideologies can be radical in the sense of political extremism in service to re-establishing past conditions. To some writers, the term reactionary carries negative connotations—Peter King observed that it is “an unsought-for label, used as a torment rather than a badge of honor.”
It’s kinda weird that we have to betray the principals of democracy to preserve it.
I felt the same way about jailing Trump before the election. If that’s the only way to keep the fascists out of power, maybe we should reconsider the idea of democracy. (or of Germany or America for that matter)
Something I’ve been thinking a lot lately is that democracy is a process. It is a means by which we attempt to ensure a just and fair government for all. It’s not an end in itself; we don’t want democracy because democracy, at least not once people really think about it.
Which leads me to a saying. “The ends do not justify the means.” This is a commonly held statement. However, it also works the other way:
The means do not justify the ends.
That means it doesn’t matter if something was done by the rules, using the process, it doesn’t matter if we voted for it, it doesn’t matter what process was used to achieve it. If the ends are wrong, going “well, it’s what was decided democratically” isn’t an excuse.
Jailing the orange diaper would’ve had nothing to do with betraying democracy. He committed crimes that he should’ve been punished for under democratically created laws. The laws simply weren’t enforced.
It’s not though. Democracy relies on a bunch of environmental factors we blew through about 100 years ago. If these parties were out meeting people one to one and making a rational case, that’d be one thing. If the press was doing their job of informing everyone properly, that’d be another thing.
But then, if they were doing that, they wouldn’t be so fucking dangerous. They’re simply riding on propaganda which we know works every time. And since capitalism also requires propaganda, we can’t shut that part down without restructuring our entire economic system, which analysts suggest might take longer than three, or even four weeks.
Companion music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC2pgcagyRk
