Germany could ban far-Right politicians from running for office
-
First of all, no, that's wrong. The AfD got to where they are in 12 years, and that was from 0 - do you really think it would take them another 10 years to get to the point where they are now?
Second of all, it STILL would not convince the people that the AfD is wrong and they would just fall for the next right-wing populist party. So even if it would work, it would only be a temporary solution to a major issue.
-
A similar system has been there to prevent Nazism rise. Sadly, AfD and other right wing parties found a loophole a decade ago.
-
I would allow that company to sell poison.
But I would not allow them to market it as health food.
If a party campaigns on far right ideals, and get elected, then fair enough, that's democracy. Sometimes you have to admit that your views are not wanted.
However, if a far right party campaigns on truth and love and free kittens for everyone, then instead is shown to be liars and haters and give out free guns, then I would have an issue.
-
First of all, no, that's wrong. The AfD got to where they are in 12 years, and that was from 0 - do you really think it would take them another 10 years to get to the point where they are now?
Second of all, it STILL would not convince the people that the AfD is wrong and they would just fall for the next right-wing populist party. So even if it would work, it would only be a temporary solution to a major issue.
First of all, no. They won't exist and can't establish anything similar if the party gets forbidden. They won't be able to do shit.
Second of all, there is no next right wing populist party like that.
That's the whole reason to ban a party.
-
Far-Right politicians in Germany could be banned from running for office under plans by the incoming government, echoing a decision in France to block Marine Le Pen from a presidential bid.
-
yes, because what you describe is not democracy, it’s mob rule
First part i agree with you but this one makes no sense to me, you are telling me that its only democracy when people align with your views, if they dont think the way you do "is not democracy". I dont agree with this one tbh.
when people align with your views
Where do you even get that from? Far-right "values" are just outside of the democratic spectrum. Far-right ideologies are invariably rooted in hurting minorities, usually defined on the basis of outward characteristics like phenotype.
One theory holds that democracy requires three fundamental principles: upward control (sovereignty residing at the lowest levels of authority), political equality, and social norms by which individuals and institutions only consider acceptable acts that reflect the first two principles of upward control and political equality.[26] Legal equality, political freedom and rule of law[27] are often identified by commentators as foundational characteristics for a well-functioning democracy.[19]
-
First of all, no. They won't exist and can't establish anything similar if the party gets forbidden. They won't be able to do shit.
Second of all, there is no next right wing populist party like that.
That's the whole reason to ban a party.
Tbf, if you remember, the Afd started out as a party critical to European integration and the Euro in particular. They were right of Merkel's CDU and they were dumb but they were not fascist. But very, very quickly, they were infiltrated in various ways by people and funds who were previously entangled with the NPD (now "Heimat").
And there definitely are a bunch of other right-wing parties that ex-Afd people could hop onto: Werteunion, Bündnis Deutschland, yada.
-
A similar system has been there to prevent Nazism rise. Sadly, AfD and other right wing parties found a loophole a decade ago.
If you're talking about the option of banning the entire party: The "loophole" that Afd is exploiting is that this action needs political support and gonservatives are unwilling to give political support for banning a(nother) right-wing party. Is that really a loophole?
-
Yeah but clearly the original comment is ironic since it addresses CDU as corrupt. You know, one of the two main parties that would be main drivers behind the suggested extremists banning?
The comment is very unlikely to be sarcastic. CDU is known to have deep ties into every single incumbent industry in Germany and Merz himself is a former chemical lobbyist and was a chair of the German BoD of BlackRock.
-
The big issue with any form of attempted suppression will not suddenly sway their voters. It would be much smarter to not give people a reason to fall for populists.
But that would be too easy, I guess.
But that would be too easy, I guess.
It's absolutely not easy at all. Afd acts like a cult, getting people de-radicalized will take a lot of effort. And some politics that emphasizes societal solidarity and education about democracy, culture, etc.; instead we have gonservatives gutting funding for all of these topics.
-
The comment is very unlikely to be sarcastic. CDU is known to have deep ties into every single incumbent industry in Germany and Merz himself is a former chemical lobbyist and was a chair of the German BoD of BlackRock.
Yeah but that's what i'm saying, given that this same CDU is one of the two parties behind the coalition talks for banning far-right politicians. Only a sarcastic comment would suggest them to do a similar vote against bribery which would get rid of a lot of CDU politicians themselves.
Why would they do that if they are corrupt, vote against their own interests?So, then why suggest this at all? Clearly to steer the discussion away from the original topic - banning far- right politicians.
-
It's a really bad idea - forcing your own political opinions is a main tenet of the 'fascism' you claim to want to ban.
Germany has a usable definition for bannable behavior, as there already is a law to ban entire parties. That criterion is having the "goal of overturning liberal-democratic basic order (FDGO)". I would imagine that this criterion would be used here as well.
-
Tbf, if you remember, the Afd started out as a party critical to European integration and the Euro in particular. They were right of Merkel's CDU and they were dumb but they were not fascist. But very, very quickly, they were infiltrated in various ways by people and funds who were previously entangled with the NPD (now "Heimat").
And there definitely are a bunch of other right-wing parties that ex-Afd people could hop onto: Werteunion, Bündnis Deutschland, yada.
At the very least, it'd buy us more time to educate the masses. But I'm not optimistic that this will work. Social media needs to die first for that and that's not likely to happen. Tossing some lies around via bots funded by Russia is so, so much easier than refuting said claims with facts. People have no interest in spending time and effort to do research. Plus the short format content being pushed everywhere completely destroys people's capability to focus on anything that take more than 20 seconds.
Banning the AfD will also make sure that the same people can't work together anymore. They'll have a very hard time building up something like this again. At least in the foreseeable future.
-
Yeah but that's what i'm saying, given that this same CDU is one of the two parties behind the coalition talks for banning far-right politicians. Only a sarcastic comment would suggest them to do a similar vote against bribery which would get rid of a lot of CDU politicians themselves.
Why would they do that if they are corrupt, vote against their own interests?So, then why suggest this at all? Clearly to steer the discussion away from the original topic - banning far- right politicians.
Eh, you're right, it's sarcastic in the sense of telling act against their self-interest.
However, I don't think @hendrik is trying to distract from the issue of far-right politics. In fact, anti-corruption legislation has a massive potential to hurt right-wingers, because their politics is oriented toward defending/opposing particular groups of people (loyalty) rather than defending/opposing values (morality).
-
At the very least, it'd buy us more time to educate the masses. But I'm not optimistic that this will work. Social media needs to die first for that and that's not likely to happen. Tossing some lies around via bots funded by Russia is so, so much easier than refuting said claims with facts. People have no interest in spending time and effort to do research. Plus the short format content being pushed everywhere completely destroys people's capability to focus on anything that take more than 20 seconds.
Banning the AfD will also make sure that the same people can't work together anymore. They'll have a very hard time building up something like this again. At least in the foreseeable future.
At the very least, it'd buy us more time
That it will.
to educate the masses. But I'm not optimistic that this will work. Social media needs to die first for that and that's not likely to happen.
I am less pessimistic. But I do think ownership structure of social media needs to change.
Banning the AfD will also make sure that the same people can't work together anymore.
Legally? Like forcing people to find new circles of friends? I can't quite imagine that.
-
Eh, you're right, it's sarcastic in the sense of telling act against their self-interest.
However, I don't think @hendrik is trying to distract from the issue of far-right politics. In fact, anti-corruption legislation has a massive potential to hurt right-wingers, because their politics is oriented toward defending/opposing particular groups of people (loyalty) rather than defending/opposing values (morality).
In addition, (actual!) anti-corruption legislation has a massive potential to hurt right-wingers, because their politics is oriented toward defending/opposing particular groups of people (blind loyalty) rather than defending/opposing values (morality).
Right, which is why it can still be a good change, even if done my a corrupt party.. Granted, if its done right or done at all.
Like, in an ideal world, sure lets throw the bribery thing in there as well. But you know, lets be realistic and go one step at a time.. -
But that would be too easy, I guess.
It's absolutely not easy at all. Afd acts like a cult, getting people de-radicalized will take a lot of effort. And some politics that emphasizes societal solidarity and education about democracy, culture, etc.; instead we have gonservatives gutting funding for all of these topics.
You seem to think that everyone who is voting for the AfD is radicalized, which couldn't be further from the truth. Many people who voted for them just saw it as the only option for change. We had CDU/SPD for over a decade where the standard of living declined constantly, then we had red yellow green which tanked it completely - that's almost every party we have available on a national level. The only options are left and AfD, and I'm gonna be honest, the left does not sound appealing to people who understand economics.
Knocking the AfD down to sub 10% would be rather simple - politics just has to shift into a direction where it's pro-population, not pro-top1%. Plenty of stuff could be done to ease the economic pressure of the population, but they rather ensure that people stay at the right I guess.
-
You seem to think that everyone who is voting for the AfD is radicalized, which couldn't be further from the truth. Many people who voted for them just saw it as the only option for change. We had CDU/SPD for over a decade where the standard of living declined constantly, then we had red yellow green which tanked it completely - that's almost every party we have available on a national level. The only options are left and AfD, and I'm gonna be honest, the left does not sound appealing to people who understand economics.
Knocking the AfD down to sub 10% would be rather simple - politics just has to shift into a direction where it's pro-population, not pro-top1%. Plenty of stuff could be done to ease the economic pressure of the population, but they rather ensure that people stay at the right I guess.
Many people who voted for them just saw it as the only option for change.
You're right, these change-for-change's sake people do exist. And I don't know what to say to them, except maybe that if they just excitement in their lives, going bungee-jumping might be better than voting neonazis into power. Their existence seems like a failure of political education too.
But, there's another, probably much larger group of people who were sucked into propaganda channels that run divide & conquer strategies on society. Much like the change-people, they are barely political but they can be mobilized by irrational fears, like Lidl selling chocolate bunnies being a precursor for their own forced islamization.
In your post, the combination of this "The only options are [...] AfD" and this "politics just has to shift into a direction where it's pro-population, not pro-top1%."
... is utterly baffling. Right-wing parties, AfD, Fdp, CxU, etc., are quite explicitly pro-special interest, not pro-populace. The further right, the more special the interests. And sure, these parties claim they are proposing common-sense "non-ideological" "sane" ideas while actually ignoring science, ignoring precedent, ignoring negative outcomes for society. That's their whole MO. If you don't want the 1% to profit, then maybe just don't vote anything right of the SPD (and even SPD is a questionable choice in that regard).
the left does not sound appealing to people who understand economics.
Interestingly enough, the economic proposals contained in the last election platform of the Left party were the most financially solid among all parties in that election (as detailed by multiple institutes, e.g. ZEW [de-DE]). The Left were the only party where the state was least burdened with unexplained money outflow that would be prohibited under the debt brake.
Is it possible that by "people who understand economics" you mean the group of people that currently profits from existing inequality? I.e. the 1%ers and the 10%ers. Because that's the people who would "suffer" from the Left's proposals (actually, while they'd make less money, they'd most likely live in a much more physically secure society).
-
System shared this topic
