Summary
Germany’s parliament will debate a proposed ban on the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) for the first time next week.
The proposal cites the AfD’s increasing radicalism and historically revisionist statements, such as co-leader Alice Weidel’s claim that Hitler was a communist.
Under Germany’s constitution, a party ban requires proof of opposition to constitutional principles.
Critics warn that a ban could portray the AfD as martyrs.
The AfD currently polls in second place at 20% ahead of February elections.
I suspect banning them will make them more powerful than they are. What we really need to do with these movements is to ridicule them at every chance possible, do not only condemn them but actively mock them and treat them with the highest degree of disdain. Make it clear that a shitstain is more worthy of consideration than them. We used to do that with the KKK in the US and it worked wonders.
No. It takes away a huge chunk of their finances and their structures. It will not make them more powerful. This is not Star Wars, and even there, I never understood how Kenobi was supposed to become more powerful by being killed.
People tried that in the US, see how well that worked out?
No it won’t. Banning them will defund them AND it bans any follow-up parties they would otherwise create.
And it will finally end their constant appearance on television, where they can advertise Nazi crap.
But the afd voters won’t disappear. The problem is not the party, but the fact that millions vote for it. People have to be convinced not to vote for it.
Believe it or not, they have always been there. The difference between the olden days and now is one of acceptance: In the olden days, most of these people voted conservative (CDU, CSU, FDP). They didn’t vote for straight-up fascist parties, because doing so was considered inacceptable by a huge part of the populace. What the AfD did was to shift the conversation further and further to the right, keep saying the unsayable and make it more and more “normal”. At the same time, the CDU under Merkel divorced itself from the extreme right by declaring themselves a party of the center, after silently accepting the fact they were the party of choice for a lot of people with fascist ideals for decades.
What we as a society have to do is to say “STOP - this is not acceptable!”, and banishing the AfD is exactly that. I am not sure where the voters of the AfD will go instead, probably the BSW or some other shit party, but that is still a better option than a strong fascist party that keeps getting attention and keeps shifting the conversation to the right until we wake up and live in nazi germany once more.
One step after another. Right now the #1 priority is stopping the fucking facists from getting into power.
I agree, the voters wouldn’t disappear but it would take time for them to find a new party to vote for. The time difference might be worth it.
No the problem with the highest priority is the nazi party clawing for power.
Have you ever heard of the following?
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.
Ridicule is helpful, but not sufficient. The new right has established itself all over western democracies. They have built organizations, institutions, parties, companies, etc.
You have to do it with care. If it comes over as believing that your non-bigoted, non-idiotic culture is superior to the fascists’ culture of bigotry and idiocy, they’ll dig in and rail against snobbish “elites” (that is, people who can string a sentence together and recognize a lie when they hear one). In the USA this sentiment strengthened the fascists and led to Trump winning the presidency twice.
(I know I’m not exactly following my own advice but I’m feeling impatient with these people right now.)
Did I miss the part where the republican party was banned?
The person I was responding to suggested that ridiculing the AfD was preferable to banning it. In the USA people ridiculed but did not ban the Republican Party, and now it is stronger than ever. I was saying that this indicates you have to be careful how you ridicule them. If people feel you’re on their side and making fun of idiot fascists, that’s good. If people think you look like a snob and the fascists are the ones on their side, it backfires.
Got it. I thought the “being careful” part was about banning, not ridiculing :)
if violence doesn’t work, then why state uses it?
Violence against movements have a history of galvanizing them. For evidence look at the OG Nazis.
Also a ban, imo, does not qualify as violence. Violence would be if the discussion was to purge them like the roaches they are, but that’s not what’s happening.
The OG Nazis never felt state repression. They would murder people and then judges set them free again because they were “obviously acting in the national interest”. The whole judiciary back then was trained during monarchy and did not consider law passed by mere parliament, the mob, as valid, they basically saw the Nazi’s autocracy as a downgraded version of having an emperor, but at least it wasn’t, *shudder*, democrats.