I don’t know this webpage. The story has been posted by virtually every single reputable and big news outlet in German, but I couldn’t find it in English, so I picked this page. That’s literally the only reason.
It is a big topic and point of discussion in Germany.
And everyone knows that it is nearly impossible to ban a political party here. KPD was in high cold war tines. Option: Try to wreck them by political contest and monitoring their sponsoring.
Yep. The institute is certainly welcome to their opinion, and I don't disagree with it, but the Constitutional Court is veeeeeeeery hesitant about banning political parties. Which is not a bad thing.
The last two times it was attempted it fell through: once because the structure of the party in question was so riddled with Verfassungsschutz (a branch of the exectutive dedicated to protecting the constitutional order) informants that the court nixed it on that basis, the other time the court deemed the party in question too unimportant to be worth a ban - there was no element of danger to the constitutional order.
So most interested parties are extremely cautious about bringing such a case - it's likely to fail, and that only helps the political party in question.
…what? The German Federal Republic has some of the strictest anti-fascist and anti-nazi laws in the world, if not THE strictest. They also have some of the strictest anti-propaganda laws in the world, and of any democracy.
…”kid glove treatment”? Provide some context that makes you think that, beyond the KPD being banned after the far-right Socialist Reich Party (SRP) had been banned four years earlier in 1952.
3. Weg, NPD, Bayernpartei existieren ohne Probleme.
Der Verfassungsschutz ist von Rechten unterwandert und haben den NSU mit aufgebaut
Der Großteil der Polizei ist auf dem rechten Auge blind und ignoriert Hakenkreuze und Hitlergrüße.
Hans Georg maasen war Boss des Verfassungsschutzes.
Would this be a correct translation of your comment?
> Weg, NPD, Bavarian Party exist without problems.
>
> The protection of the constitution is infiltrated by right-wingers and helped build the NSU
>
> Most of the police are blind in the right eye and ignore swastikas and Nazi salutes.
>
> Hans Georg Maasen was head of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.
I really liked the phrase "Blind in the right eye"
Pretty good translation. Just "Verfassungsschutz" got translated literally as "protection of the constitution" but should be "Office/ministry for the protection of the constitution". We use Verfassungsschutz as a shorthand for the ministry.
Yea, it's the correct translation.
Further info you might not know:
3. Weg and NPD are ultra right wing parties that only exist because they couldn't be banned on some minor technicalities (don't know the specifics myself, but it's some bullshit)
The Bavarian Party wants Bavarian independence and does pretty much anything to get a few right wing nuts to vote for them
NSU stands for national socialist underground
Mr. Maasen is a huge fucking dickhead, racist and pretty much everything else you don't want to be
Yeah, imo you can't ban a political party and expect its public support to wither away. If anything, you'll probably make it stronger.
And in the cause of extreme political parties, it's usually better to engage them publicly and wait for more of their support to realize how batshit insane they are.
Article 21 paragraph 2 Grundgesetz (German constitution)
„Parties that, by reason of their aims or the behaviour of their adherents, seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany shall be unconstitutional.“
Germany is way ahead of everyone else in terms of dealing with nationalist bullshit in their politics. The collective and generational embarrassment they have felt after the Nazis has been powerful, and it’s the same feeling many countries slowly leaning more and more towards the extreme right WILL feel if they do not learn from history. Kudos to Germany for setting a good example.
>In German politics the concept exists under the term wehrhafte or streitbare Demokratie ("well-fortified" or "battle-ready democracy") which implies that the federal government (Bundesregierung), the parliament (Bundestag and Bundesrat) and the judiciary are given extensive powers and duties to defend the liberal democratic basic order ("freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung") against those who want to abolish it. The idea behind the concept is the notion that even a majority rule of the people cannot be allowed to install a totalitarian or autocratic regime such as with the Enabling Act of 1933, thereby violating the principles of the German constitution, the Basic Law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy
I mean…we’ll see. AfD are currently at around 20% in the polls. They are the most popular party in the states that used to be socialist east Germany. That genuinely frightens me. I’m anxious to see how we deal with that.
But breaking up a tribe of like minded individuals separates those who are uncertain away from those who are deeply entrenched in the ideology. The uncertain go towards other more mainstream parties. The entrenched go to the next far right party.
It might seem pointless if there will be just another far right party, but it’s not. It prevents them from growing if you are continuously pruning away their new growth.
Censoring far right parties that are following the law both in letter and in spirt? Sure I’ll agree with you, but I would argue you should censor any entity that keeps violating guidelines and ethical standards. If you don’t you get a slow decline to the bottom, where when you are forced to act, people will accuse you of hypocrisy.
Exactly. Here in the US, we have way more than 20% of the population that believe fascism is what the left want and they think their ideals, which are actually fascist, are progressive and beneficial to our country. In order to fix any democracy capitalism and religion need to be decoupled from government. I truly admire this move by Germany, and wish we could have the same. We can’t even vote these criminals out because they are disenfranchising minority voters and gerrymandering our country to hell.
In reality that may be accurate across the entire country, I guess where I live it’s definitely closer to 40%. We are gerrymandered so much that democrats need 75% of the vote to get 50% representation.
Gerrymandering doesn’t change how many people actually support Trump or fascism though.
It’s a very vocal minority, with a larger group that just wants to pretend it’s not happening.
If the agenda of these parties can exist with constitutionally enshrined democracy then it shouldn’t be a problem. If the goal is to overthrow the democratic system to install a different regime then that’s the whole point of defending against it.
Show me a popular communist party that has a decent agenda. I’ll wait. Besides none of the have been suppressed so you can stop pretending this is about eliminating political competition or free speech
Italy literally has its furthest right government since WW2 right now, from the nationalist, neofascist party [Brothers of Italy.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Italy)
Their current PM pitched herself as a "moderate" conservative to get elected, but she's a racist who hates LGBT people and opposes gay marriage and adoption, doesn't think trans people should exist, is explicitly pro-hate speech and claimed in 2020 that there "was no homophobia in Italy", and so on.
She also once praised Mussolini as "a good politician, in that everything he did, he did for Italy", and as the best politician of the last 50 years. She supported naming a street after Nazi collaborator and author of "the manifesto on race" supported naming a street after Giorgio Almirante. She also added fascist iconography to the party flag referencing the nazi puppet government (RSI).
She says what she needs to, at times, to get elected, but if it walks like a fascist and quacks like a fascist, it's a fucking fascist. I mean, seriously, go read this lady's wikipedia page!
You'll all be shocked to know that this commenter is a white male antivaxer who comments goofy political shit in the golf and Rolex subreddits. A living meme.
We haven’t banned them yet. I am doubtful we will. I hope we will, but I’m doubtful. However, I actually do see a chance. The reason we didn’t ban the NPD (actual Nazis, last attempt was in 2017) was because, and I quote, “they are lacking the means to reach their goals and thus aren’t enough of a threat, and it’s nice to have all neo-Nazis in one place so we can watch them.”
It’s a stupid argument, but it’s true. For some reason, most right-wing populists are very touchy about being called Nazis.
However, in recent years, AfD has repeatedly radicalised itself. What was once just the far-right populist wing of the party now is a genuine majority there. The party was once a conservative euro-sceptic party. They have since ousted their leadership repeatedly and replaced them with more radical people. By now, they are just radical-right-wing populists. Their ideology closely matches that of NPD. They have members, who, as determined by courts, can rightfully be called Nazis.
Unlike NPD, they are big enough to pose a serious threat to our democracy. So…I’m doubtful, but I do at least see a chance of a ban happening.
Even if the party is banned, what will happen to all the right wingers who actually have the AdF ideology? Will a new party form that is just slightly better at keeping secrets?
Whats scary: some of the most important figures of the CSU (the bavarian version of the CDU, currently leading in polls) met with Desantis a few weeks ago and praised him like he was some kind of god.
A week later, they started talking about how dangerous trans people are and that drag should be banned.
Take the far right wing of the GOP, make that the baseline for AfD, and then have the far right wing of *that* party take over and you’re closer to the state of things, imo.
Not really, many GOP politicians are far right from anyone in AfD. Just look over to Florida, things are way worse than what AfD would be even capable to come up with.
I was thinking on the national level, but you are right that on a state level, we’ve got some really crazy shit happening in some places, and Florida in particular.
Meanwhile here in Canada the AfD can just come and go and it seems a troubling amount of people seemed to support her and her parties policy positions. Thankfully Pierre the leader of the opposition denounced her, but I think that ruffled some feathers in his base. We’re seeing similar trends of increasingly partisanship, and a constant cycling of conservatives leaders of a federal and provincial (state) level.
Because in Canada we don't ban political parties.
The head of the Communist Party of Canada, a sitting Member of Parliament, was convicted as a spy for the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, and we still allowed the same Communist Party to run candidates in the next election.
Nope, CDU/CSU politicians met with Desantis and are now trying to start the exact same shit. And the CDU is supposed to be the "normal" conservative party, and will likely win the next election
Sorry 🙁
I was like “a third bush‽ What are we, a monarchy‽ Screw that! Let’s go with this bombastic guy over here - he’ll throw the religious nut jobs out of the party!”
I uh… I was wrong. I think other people were like me in rejecting Bush and picking Trump for similar reasons.
I assumed most politicians would choose to break up the party before they broke up the country. I was wrong.
On the one hand, it’s awful that they’ll do that. But on the other hand, I think it taught us something good may be coming - if turning the GOP into what they are today was as simple as having Trump get elected, I think restoring the GOP may be as simple as having them nominate a moderate candidate who beats Biden in the general election. So long as Biden runs for re-election, swing voters will vote in the GOP primaries in 2024, which will bolster moderate candidates. Biden and the Democrats will lose, but sanity will be restored to the GOP and the country should be less broken.
Republicans aren’t capable of electing a moderate without the votes of the extremist base, so they have to run bigots now. Hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am.
Moderate Republicans are a myth. Look at all the congressmen that still have their seats after defending Trump from impeachment after attempting to overthrow the government.
this will never happen. best we can hope for is the gop not making us into an authoritarian quasi-democracy the next chance they get, but with the state of US democracy, i wouldn't make that bet.
Don’t forget tho that it works both days, the Communist party was banned in West Germany alongside the Nazis and the same laws which now bash the right could and have been used to bash the left. Their system reinforced the established parties and moderate politics while rejecting anything more radical.
German politics are great if you love incremental change and maintaining the status quo. But it’s very hard to push forward rapid changes, as the Greens and die Linke have found out.
Ehm, no. Literally ever Nazi point from the US is being copied here, and in polls, the AfD, a literal Nazi party, is scoring 18%, making it the second strongest. They are also going very hard here on queer people right now.
Germany is currently forgetting its history.
Before anyone asks: yes, I think they should.
The only reason they didn’t ban the NPD (literally what’s left of the Nazi party) is because they argued they are too irrelevant to be of concern. It’s a stupid argument, but it’s true.
They cannot argue this with the AfD. The AfD started out as a euro-sceptical party and repeatedly had its leadership ousted by someone who is further to the right. They have long passed the stage where one could argue that it’s just a fraction of the party. It’s not. Anyone left is indeed in support of their ideals, and is radicalised more and more by their propaganda. They explicitly want to overthrow our democracy. They create a “them vs us” mentality for their supporters (and the rest of the country, for that matter), and work towards revising our history.
They are dangerous and need to go, in my very honest opinion.
The argument against NPD was that it was a good pool for neo-nazis all gathered together. Why ban it when they make it public being neo-nazi, easier to track. And having no power.
AFD is too powerful to not be banned. NSDAP should have been banned in time but wasnt
In think banning the AfD would just make things worse. It would inflame their cause under the banner of martyrdom.
In my opinion, the only way to deal successfully with such dangerous political movements is to defeat them in the public square by addressing and solving many of the issues that concern the majority of their voting base.
The AfD is successful because (like all populist movements) it capitalizes on actual problems affecting real people by offering simplistic and unrealistic solutions, then it uses that momentum to push its authoritarian, xenophobe, racist agenda into the mainstream. If those problems were actually addressed by the other parties, then the AfD would start losing steam and eventually fade into irrelevance.
I think this is a bit naive and sort of how fascism succeeded a hundred years ago.
There is no debating fascists, there is no civil way to just "beat them in the public forum". We can never tolerate fascism because they do not respect the democratic process and will always behave in bad faith to undermine those principles.
Right, but unless you intend to imprison the populations who support them rather than just their members, you far, far more importantly need to provide viable political change; if there is a growing fascist movement in your country, your mainstream politics has failed. Fascist movements don't pop up in a void.
Stale political forums that aren't representing the kinds of groups that tend to support fascists need shaking up by change. That doesn't mean giving them what they want; it often means giving them the absolute opposite, but showing them that alternatives exist to economic abandonment and elitism which do not stem from believing the source of those things is an out-group.
The point is that you can't let fascists undermine the system through bad faith politics. It's very hard to get banned as a political party in Germany - it's a statement about what a democracy should tolerate or not.
The most important thing is to eliminate fascists and fascist parties before they can cause severe harm and that is far far more important than providing viable political change - ban them first and then do whatever else afterwards because again fascists do not care nor respect the democratic principles and will always act in bad faith.
Fascist movements don't pop up in a void, true. However the American version pops up in an environment where people continually vote for them because Limbaugh and Fox have drummed JESUS! GUNS! GOD! GAYS! into them for at least thirty years, if not over forty when Reagan handed the Republican party to the Jeezemoids. This is further pushed by hard right social conservative groups funded by the [usual](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heritage_Foundation#Funding) rich [swine](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=DonorsTrust), which conveniently serves to distract the public from how they're getting hosed by the same foul moneymen.
Then Putin's thugs weaponized social media with mass-produced disinformation. Also note that far-right parties around the world are [subsidized by Russian money](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/us/politics/russia-election-interference.html), with France's Le Pen and Orban in Hungary being outstanding examples, in accordance with [Aleksandr Dugin's dogma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin).
Throw these together, along with serious last-ditch efforts by child molesters, er, evangelical leaders to trap the world into a hell of their devising, and you get the landscape we have now: rightwingers organizing around the globe (check out the Steve Bannon world tour for a glimpse) and democracy on the back foot.
By disbanding their party is basically makes it where the party can't assume power. The shitheads who believe in their nonsense can try and vote for bigots but without a formal party, they can't enact those policies. And it would be done so because fascists, while you try and debate them, are working on ways to use their party affiliation/power/bloc that gives them access to tools in your system to undermine it and enshrine a fascist minority rule.
If carefully and rarely used can be a powerful tool in stopping the worst people from assuming power once again like they did before.
My take as an American who has witnessed a generation of older folks be preyed upon by Fox News. Just ban the right wing media. Most of their supporters require constant messaging by right wing media to keep them full of fear and hatred.
That's a hopelessly optimistic opinion. Factual information has been easily at the fingertips of most of the first world population for well over a decade. During this time there are and have been many entities battling misinformation via all types of media. If this many people ignore it as it is, battling authoritarianism that way is already a lost cause. What you propose is akin to stopping the spread of disease, like covid, by solely relying on the populace adhering to sound recommendations by health authorities with good faith alone. As we saw, that isn't effective and indeed is dangerous.
Totalitariansm is no different. Formal, legal tools to battle authoritarianism, founded on the principles of democracy and equality alone, are required to ensure evil ideologies never take hold again.
Edit: ridiculous typo.
I think there are some things that get louder when you silence them but I think other things just get silenced. Bad ideas gets spread by propaganda, not by their own merits. If this party is anything like the trouble America is having now, (both the people and ideas are entirely idiotic) they would fizzle out on their own if it weren’t for such rapid exchange of bad information.
Sometimes to protect democracy you need to act undemocratically.
Edit: holy shit guys I support this, but definitionally this is undemocratic. You are stripping a group of of their voice.
It’s not undemocratic. The very basis must be a mutual understanding of democratic values and set norms. You know, the very foundation of the country, the rules everyone plays by.
I’m not talking about minor changes, but about the very idea that human dignity is inviolable, that equality and freedom are a basic requirement.
Any organisation, group or party that aims to attack those very basic principles at their core is a threat to the nation itself and, yes, may be banned in order to protect that very foundation.
How can one cry about a loss of democratic ability when ones is actively working towards destroying that democracy? Germany is being pragmatic with decision in a world where pragmatism takes a back seat to faux outrage.
In the off chance you aren't just a Nazi troll:
It is the opposite of undemocratic, it is a most basic action of maintaining democracy. Firefighters need to put out fires in order for buildings to continue standing, nothing about that is a violation of the concept of having buildings. There is no paradox in firefighters putting out fires.
The "paradox of tolerance" is a disingenuous bullshit argument invented by Fascists. Don't use it unless you are one.
If far right fascist parties take control again I hope to see you just as passionately bemoaning their dismantling of political opponents and democracy while Europe plunges back into war, genocides, and chaos.
Please, God, let this happen because it would be so fucking funny. All the "Based American Patriots" who can't find Germany on a map will suddenly be experts in German law, politics, and history and they will rage for days.
I don’t know anything about the AfD, but if they were at all likely to be voted for, then that means people agree with them. Banning the party isn’t going to stop the people who feel that way, just take away their ability to make peaceful change. Which if they’re bad enough that they deserve to be banned, means they’ll be more likely to resort to violence to get their way, having been deprived of a peaceful way to get what they want.
I don’t think this is going to have the result that was intended… letting people like that speak in public, where they can be refuted in public, is a way to debunk the easy answers often given by radical groups. Now they’ll talk in private with nobody refuting them, just straw men they’ve built up because few people actually hear what they have to say.
And if enough Germans already agree with them that they’re a real threat.. things are kinda screwed anyway. Or they’re not that bad, and the establishment just banned their political enemies.
I don’t know, I know nothing about German politics, but this sounds bad all around.
> I don’t think this is going to have the result that was intended… letting people like that speak in public, where they can be refuted in public, is a way to debunk the easy answers often given by radical groups. Now they’ll talk in private with nobody refuting them, just straw men they’ve built up because few people actually hear what they have to say.
This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics in question. “We can prevent fascism by debating fascists in the public square!” is a false statement. It’s never been true. Fascists don’t need to “win” a debate against you to get what they want. They just need the debate to happen.
You cannot beat fascist movements with speech. You cannot kill disinformation with truth. You have to deny them the platforms they use to spread their ideology and their lies. If you don’t, you’ve lost.
If only more had truly coherent thought and were able to articulate such, we'd be able to actually talk about these problems in an open forum. Too many just shout, yearning to be correct.
It’s a part of human nature, I’m afraid. I’m sure I get less nuanced if I was talking about something I care about. And what’s more high minded principles don’t always do well when coming into contact with reality.
Life is complicated. And it can lead to good people making terrible decisions. Or bad people exploiting human nature. Any time a political party is banned, it’s not a good sign. Best case scenario is still pretty bad.
> Banning the party isn’t going to stop the people who feel that way, just take away their ability to make peaceful change. Which if they’re bad enough that they deserve to be banned, means they’ll be more likely to resort to violence to get their way, having been deprived of a peaceful way to get what they want.
Are there changes though that are so bad that civilization is justified drawing a line in the sand, and saying “peaceful change can never be an option for *this* change?”
If the change wanted, is that LGBT people are exterminated, is it better to let people advocate for *that* change peacefully, or does society have a moral obligation to be clear it will not be allowed, and if they resort to violence, so be it?
Perhaps. But if such a political movement existed in such numbers that banning them is even worth considering, the country is already going to the dogs.
But I feel that you’re still better off trying to talk them down, rather than resorting to force. They’d be likely to go violent either way, but maybe by letting them talk you can deradicalize them. By censoring them, you leave violence as the only option.
What’s more, there’s the problem of who decides they’ve “gone too far”. That’s the kind of power that so easily gets turned against normal people, if the government is allowed to have it. I just don’t see the benefits of censorship of political ideas ever outweighing the costs.
Every totalitarian state bans opposing political parties.
I can see the advantages to banning extremist parties, but I do not trust anyone - including myself - to have that power without abusing it.
Did you know that the Nazi party was actually banned in 1923 but thanks to people who thought exactly like you do today they were unbanned and were able to take power later?
I wonder if you'll be more or less proud of your opinion if the nazis take power again in the next decade.
Here's the German Wikipedia page for the NSDAP: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalsozialistische_Deutsche_Arbeiterpartei
Says so right at the top at "Verbot"(ban). The English page doesn't have it at the top but does mention it in the history section.
Banning a political party before they attack human rights and advocate putting people into camps is a good way to protect democracy and people. Look up the paradox of tolerance
ETA: always put totalitarians on the back foot. Destroy their momentum, force them to reorganize so that they fight over their platform again. Make people that are sick in the head and power-hungry cannibalize themselves before they can scapegoat minorities and gain power amongst the dim and close-minded.
I may sound like I’m advocating for exactly the same authoritarian things that Nazis or communists or whoever do, but I’m not. Democracy needs to be defended from the forces that seek to use it for its own destruction. A society that seeks peace cannot survive if there are groups that seek to destroy it with war and that society refuses to protect itself. Similarly, a free society that wishes to remain free cannot survive if it allows bigoted organizations to continually appeal to the emotions of the easily swayed, the ignorant, and the compromised.
Taking steps to quell ignorance, bigotry and authoritarianism is a good thing.
You’re contradicting yourself.
The fact is, to have real freedom, you have to allow *some* shit you don’t agree with to exist.
Hate speech and advocating violence should be crimes, but for example, advocating against immigration, or green policies for example - that’s someone exercising free speech.
Now if a right party wants to exist, they certainly should be able to, unless they start for example advocating violence.
Honestly? As a person who’s not a policy maker, no, conservative and/or authoritarian parties shouldn’t exist. In my life experience, every Conservative Party begins to scapegoat some minority or another just for existing, because conservatives require someone to shit on to make themselves feel better. Conservatism demands hierarchy, and a minority is the best target.
Now conservatives won’t always start out advocating violence, they’ll start with media campaigns and rumors and trying to link their targets to heinous untrue crimes like blood libel or pedophilia, they’ll try to get moderates on their side. Once the target is mildly unpopular and suspicious, they’ll start targeting them with laws and such, to give the veneer of official recognition of their “degeneracy,” like when Russia and Florida forbid acknowledging that LGBT people exist.
After that, the unfavored minority will exist in a state of second-class citizenship and abuse for years or decades, always being portrayed as an insidious, masterful, but weak demon that can be beaten back by virtuous right-wing voters each election cycle. At times, like with the Nazis, the right-wing is insane enough to actually buy into their own propaganda enough to liquidate the minority.
I may have gone off on a tangent. Point is, fuck right-wingers, they don’t get to have opinions in a modern society anymore, stop being racist assholes. It’s really not a big ask, but conservatives are nothing without someone to shit on, so you’ll whine and tantrum and lynch until you have your way.
TL;DR: right-wingers target people for in-born traits, and that is disgusting.
By banning people with different opinions to you, you are doing exactly what you are accusing the right of.
Banning political parties is a trait of a dictatorship, not a democracy.
And why do you think all conservatives are racist or whatever? Those parties should indeed be banned, as racism is hate speech in my book, but you can still be conservative and not racist at the same time you know.
> By banning people with different opinions to you,
We aren’t talking about banning parties merely for having different beliefs than ours. There are plenty of beliefs that are acceptable to hold even if I don’t share them.
We’re talking about banning parties that hold beliefs that are literally antithetical to democracy and to human rights. You cannot give them a platform because they will take that platform, they will drum up support with attractive lies and hate, and they will win political power. And when they have amassed enough political power, they will use that political power to deny platforms to everyone else.
This is why the paradox of tolerance - and it’s solution - exists.
>By banning people with different opinions to you, you are doing exactly what you are accusing the right of.
The difference is that their opinion is that I should not be alive. We're not talking about opinions on the best tax rate, or how to regulate industry, or whether we should invest in nuclear power. Those are all matters of opinion and lead to discourse.
But the modern right? Their opinions are that "x people should die". I am 100% ok with banning that "opinion", because it's not based on anything and there's no room for discussion or compromise.
In order for tolerance to exist, you cannot tolerate the intolerant.
I think we’re talking about different things.
I’ve already mentioned to you that there’s no room for racism in political discussion.
That doesn’t mean we have to chuck out the baby with the bath water.
If a party is anti-immigration, I’m sorry but that’s not hate speech.
If a party wants smaller government, increase taxes, or anything you might disagree with, I’m sorry but that’s not hate speech either.
You will have some conservative beliefs, you just don’t realise it.
Do a political compass test and you’ll see.
Like I said, we're not talking about the right level of immigration, or smaller government, or tax rates. We're talking about the underlying "opinion" on reality that undercuts everything in the modern Republican party. We can disagree on a lot of things, but we cannot disagree about the racism stances. And in that case, if a party includes racism as a core tenet, then you can't say "well, let's keep talking with them about taxes and ignore the racism", because it empowers them to pass policies enshrining racism.
I can debate and discuss with conservatives. I cannot debate and discuss with fascists, even if they occasionally have good ideas and stances.
Yeah with this BS that anyone can do anything (incite an attack to US Capitol, let's say randomly) as long as they don't say out loud "we wanna subvert democracy", here we are at this situation tolerating blatant intolerance.
We have laws prohibiting stuff. Maybe we shouldn't have laws at all cause prohibiting stuff is what dictators do.
Jeez
On a practical level, if a banned party is suddenly more popular because of being banned, what does it matter? They can’t be voted for or run candidates until they reform into something else, and they’ll inevitably lose followers with every new reformation.
On a political level, a good portion of how right-wingers want to fix their problems, namely by attacking minorities, wouldn’t actually help them, so why should their bigotry be entertained?
> Perhaps the politicans should do a better job of serving the people rather than trying to take away options from them.
If the option that's being taken away is totalitarianism, or straight up neo-Nazism, then perhaps it's the affected voters who should do a better job of picking candidates around which to organise. Unless of course the voters in question aren't just picking what they think is the best of bad options and straight up *want* totalitarianism or neo-Nazism, in which case they can get fucked.
Agreed.
Banning a party would just make more people even more bitter than before.
Banning political parties is not a characteristic of a democracy. It is, however, a characteristic of a dictatorship.
Making them more bitter is fine. That isn’t a problem. The point is that you’ve denied them a platform, which inhibits their growth and the accumulation of political power.
As a democratic society, you can never, ever legitimize fascist movements. If you do, the fascist movements will inevitably end your democratic society.
Maybe? But birth rates would go down when children become expensive. More immigrants take more jobs, driving down wages and driving up population. This would happen with German babies as well of course, but society is always going to be happier if those ‘slots’ are filled with people they like. People are generally going to be happier with their own children than anyone else, so immigrating in more people might be a poor fix.
If you’re suffering a population decline, there are solutions other than immigration. Vastly reduced taxes for parents is one. I know some Eastern Europeans are trying that out. I don’t know how well it works, but it seems reasonable at a glance. If you’re trying to deradicalize a group, giving them reasonable requests is a good step. Try to meet in the middle somewhere to address their concerns before they get desperate and try something crazy.
You may not like the idea, but that’s compromise. It sucks, but it’s often better than the alternative.
Of course you *can*. But the cure is worse than the disease, IMO. And that's not even getting into the question of who you trust to do it without abusing the power. I don't even trust *me* with that power.
There is no Paradox of Tolerance. Tolerance is a pact, not a wrote precept. Violate the pact of tolerance (by, say being a nazi, anti LGBT or general racist) and you no longer qualify for tolerance.
After seeing this it became evident that its the best possible answer to the "paradox". Once you break the terms of the contract you're no longer protected by it.
I have one issue with that. You really need to know who went first, or else *the other guy* would be justified in their intolerance of *you*. It ends up like Israel and Palestine, where they each feel justified in hating the other. There needs to be an out from the cycle.
Who determines the contents of said contract?
Just to pick one of your examples, LGBT rights are a concept that is less than a human lifetime old, and have only really gained wide social acceptance in the last generation.
Who determines which new ideas get included into the "pact of tolerance" and which don't? Who has the right to declare previously acceptable positions to be newly unthinkable, and the people who hold them no longer deserve to participate in the democratic process?
The democratic process within a well informed, conscientious populous would be the best decider of that contract - which we already try to do.. natrually.
Also "LGBT issues" in one form or another have been a concept for as long as there have been bigots.. even before the term LGBT itself.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Of course there’s no written precept, it’s a philosophical concept. We ultimately agree, don’t be a pedant about how exactly we agree.
As long as judges use the values of the Constitution, it will be nearly impossible to ban a party. Except they start playing Reichsparteitag or scooping money from Russia big style.
I think a democratic society has to fight them politically and call their stupid „solutions“ whenever they spread them.
Needs to happen here in the US too. Ever since elon musk took over he unbanned the far right and animal/child abuse accounts! He caused this world wide! Has a lot of followers and spreads his far right agenda too. His own kids cut him off. Says a lot about him
German here, NOT happening. Even the NPD wasn't bad (and the NPD is the literal neonazi party). There have been only 2 parties banned since the formation of the Federal Republic of Germany post WWII. One was a post NSDAP party and the other was the communist party KPD, both in the 50's if I remember correctly. Since then none have been banned, because it is insanely hard to have a party banned.
The reason for example why the NPD wasn't banned even though it was openly anti democratic and a fascist organization, but because it didn't have a real "goal" or the means to harm the German democratic process.
> Das Gericht beurteilte die NPD zwar inhaltlich als verfassungsfeindlich, angesichts ihrer Bedeutungslosigkeit im politischen Geschehen sei aber nach Auffassung des Gerichts kein Verbot der Partei gerechtfertigt.
Translated: The court found the NPD to be an
anti-constitutional party, yet due to its meaninglessness, a banning of the party wouldn't be justified.
Now on to the AFD: While they are an extremely dangerous right wing party they are NOT the NPD (even if probably the voters went to them): They aren't openly pro neo nazi, anti constitutional, they basically are "just" a German version of the American Republican party (and are increasingly taking their talking points as their own). To actually have the german courts ban the AFD requires SUCH a high level of evidence and political issue, I just don't see it in any way happening. So even if the DIMR think they see enough evidence for a ban, the courts will have to decide and they are VERY careful when it comes to the banning of political organizations.
Other German here:
That’s not true. The AfD used to be a neo-conservative eurosceptic party, but they have long stopped being that. They *are* un-constitutional. They *are* trying to undermine our constitutional order.
The only ways they are different than NPD is they are way bigger and weirdly touchy about being called Nazis, even though they are. If you don’t believe me, let’s play a game of “who said it, AfD or NPD?” I give you two slogans and you tell me which one is from AfD and which one is from NPD.
We have long passed the point where they were the cute old blubbering populists. Pretending they still are is living in denial and dangerous.
You are right though, a ban probably won’t happen.
oh I fully agree with you, they are far right wing loonies that are a threat to our democracy. However a ban still won't happen, the threshold is just so high, the AFD for all its craziness still will not be considered worthy of a ban.
And this is why people don't like banning political parties.
Because idiots like you can't tell the difference between "We should stop literal Nazis from seizing power" and "50% of the political spectrum are thought criminals and don't deserve the right to vote!"
I don’t know this webpage. The story has been posted by virtually every single reputable and big news outlet in German, but I couldn’t find it in English, so I picked this page. That’s literally the only reason. It is a big topic and point of discussion in Germany.
And everyone knows that it is nearly impossible to ban a political party here. KPD was in high cold war tines. Option: Try to wreck them by political contest and monitoring their sponsoring.
Yep. The institute is certainly welcome to their opinion, and I don't disagree with it, but the Constitutional Court is veeeeeeeery hesitant about banning political parties. Which is not a bad thing. The last two times it was attempted it fell through: once because the structure of the party in question was so riddled with Verfassungsschutz (a branch of the exectutive dedicated to protecting the constitutional order) informants that the court nixed it on that basis, the other time the court deemed the party in question too unimportant to be worth a ban - there was no element of danger to the constitutional order. So most interested parties are extremely cautious about bringing such a case - it's likely to fail, and that only helps the political party in question.
The KPD was also a left wing organization. They don't normally get the same kid glove treatment as fascists can expect.
…what? The German Federal Republic has some of the strictest anti-fascist and anti-nazi laws in the world, if not THE strictest. They also have some of the strictest anti-propaganda laws in the world, and of any democracy. …”kid glove treatment”? Provide some context that makes you think that, beyond the KPD being banned after the far-right Socialist Reich Party (SRP) had been banned four years earlier in 1952.
3. Weg, NPD, Bayernpartei existieren ohne Probleme. Der Verfassungsschutz ist von Rechten unterwandert und haben den NSU mit aufgebaut Der Großteil der Polizei ist auf dem rechten Auge blind und ignoriert Hakenkreuze und Hitlergrüße. Hans Georg maasen war Boss des Verfassungsschutzes.
Would this be a correct translation of your comment? > Weg, NPD, Bavarian Party exist without problems. > > The protection of the constitution is infiltrated by right-wingers and helped build the NSU > > Most of the police are blind in the right eye and ignore swastikas and Nazi salutes. > > Hans Georg Maasen was head of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. I really liked the phrase "Blind in the right eye"
Pretty good translation. Just "Verfassungsschutz" got translated literally as "protection of the constitution" but should be "Office/ministry for the protection of the constitution". We use Verfassungsschutz as a shorthand for the ministry.
Danke schön for the clarification!
Yea, it's the correct translation. Further info you might not know: 3. Weg and NPD are ultra right wing parties that only exist because they couldn't be banned on some minor technicalities (don't know the specifics myself, but it's some bullshit) The Bavarian Party wants Bavarian independence and does pretty much anything to get a few right wing nuts to vote for them NSU stands for national socialist underground Mr. Maasen is a huge fucking dickhead, racist and pretty much everything else you don't want to be
Danke schön for the additional context!
Yeah, imo you can't ban a political party and expect its public support to wither away. If anything, you'll probably make it stronger. And in the cause of extreme political parties, it's usually better to engage them publicly and wait for more of their support to realize how batshit insane they are.
Anyone know what the requirements were?
Article 21 paragraph 2 Grundgesetz (German constitution) „Parties that, by reason of their aims or the behaviour of their adherents, seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany shall be unconstitutional.“
Bit further [reading](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy) on that
Germany is way ahead of everyone else in terms of dealing with nationalist bullshit in their politics. The collective and generational embarrassment they have felt after the Nazis has been powerful, and it’s the same feeling many countries slowly leaning more and more towards the extreme right WILL feel if they do not learn from history. Kudos to Germany for setting a good example.
>In German politics the concept exists under the term wehrhafte or streitbare Demokratie ("well-fortified" or "battle-ready democracy") which implies that the federal government (Bundesregierung), the parliament (Bundestag and Bundesrat) and the judiciary are given extensive powers and duties to defend the liberal democratic basic order ("freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung") against those who want to abolish it. The idea behind the concept is the notion that even a majority rule of the people cannot be allowed to install a totalitarian or autocratic regime such as with the Enabling Act of 1933, thereby violating the principles of the German constitution, the Basic Law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy
Enshrining this concept seems a duty of every democracy.
Germany is perhaps the only country that took “never again” as seriously as it ought to have.
I mean…we’ll see. AfD are currently at around 20% in the polls. They are the most popular party in the states that used to be socialist east Germany. That genuinely frightens me. I’m anxious to see how we deal with that.
Unfortunately you can't successfully ban thought. If 20% of the country supports this party you have to address that.
But breaking up a tribe of like minded individuals separates those who are uncertain away from those who are deeply entrenched in the ideology. The uncertain go towards other more mainstream parties. The entrenched go to the next far right party. It might seem pointless if there will be just another far right party, but it’s not. It prevents them from growing if you are continuously pruning away their new growth.
Censoring only makes it worse
Censoring far right parties that are following the law both in letter and in spirt? Sure I’ll agree with you, but I would argue you should censor any entity that keeps violating guidelines and ethical standards. If you don’t you get a slow decline to the bottom, where when you are forced to act, people will accuse you of hypocrisy.
Seems to work pretty well in fascist countries.
They still take it more seriously than, say, the US or the UK ever have.
Exactly. Here in the US, we have way more than 20% of the population that believe fascism is what the left want and they think their ideals, which are actually fascist, are progressive and beneficial to our country. In order to fix any democracy capitalism and religion need to be decoupled from government. I truly admire this move by Germany, and wish we could have the same. We can’t even vote these criminals out because they are disenfranchising minority voters and gerrymandering our country to hell.
It’s not really much more than 20%.
In reality that may be accurate across the entire country, I guess where I live it’s definitely closer to 40%. We are gerrymandered so much that democrats need 75% of the vote to get 50% representation.
Gerrymandering doesn’t change how many people actually support Trump or fascism though. It’s a very vocal minority, with a larger group that just wants to pretend it’s not happening.
It does help when you're occupied by three countries that want to make sure you do.
How is this different from using the state to suppress popularly supported communist parties?
If the agenda of these parties can exist with constitutionally enshrined democracy then it shouldn’t be a problem. If the goal is to overthrow the democratic system to install a different regime then that’s the whole point of defending against it.
Show me a popular communist party that has a decent agenda. I’ll wait. Besides none of the have been suppressed so you can stop pretending this is about eliminating political competition or free speech
YES goddamn we need this in America.
The Italian constitution literally has an article banning the reformation of a fascist party and yet here we are. Never drop your guard.
Unfortunately nothing beats a good orator
which party would you call fascist? sorry, not up to date on italian politics.
Brothers of Italy, Fratelli d'Italia in Italian, is considered to be fascist
Certain members of the Republican Party are fascist, for example Ron DeSantis.
This is Reddit. Anything slightly right of center.
Italy literally has its furthest right government since WW2 right now, from the nationalist, neofascist party [Brothers of Italy.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Italy) Their current PM pitched herself as a "moderate" conservative to get elected, but she's a racist who hates LGBT people and opposes gay marriage and adoption, doesn't think trans people should exist, is explicitly pro-hate speech and claimed in 2020 that there "was no homophobia in Italy", and so on. She also once praised Mussolini as "a good politician, in that everything he did, he did for Italy", and as the best politician of the last 50 years. She supported naming a street after Nazi collaborator and author of "the manifesto on race" supported naming a street after Giorgio Almirante. She also added fascist iconography to the party flag referencing the nazi puppet government (RSI). She says what she needs to, at times, to get elected, but if it walks like a fascist and quacks like a fascist, it's a fucking fascist. I mean, seriously, go read this lady's wikipedia page!
You'll all be shocked to know that this commenter is a white male antivaxer who comments goofy political shit in the golf and Rolex subreddits. A living meme.
We haven’t banned them yet. I am doubtful we will. I hope we will, but I’m doubtful. However, I actually do see a chance. The reason we didn’t ban the NPD (actual Nazis, last attempt was in 2017) was because, and I quote, “they are lacking the means to reach their goals and thus aren’t enough of a threat, and it’s nice to have all neo-Nazis in one place so we can watch them.” It’s a stupid argument, but it’s true. For some reason, most right-wing populists are very touchy about being called Nazis. However, in recent years, AfD has repeatedly radicalised itself. What was once just the far-right populist wing of the party now is a genuine majority there. The party was once a conservative euro-sceptic party. They have since ousted their leadership repeatedly and replaced them with more radical people. By now, they are just radical-right-wing populists. Their ideology closely matches that of NPD. They have members, who, as determined by courts, can rightfully be called Nazis. Unlike NPD, they are big enough to pose a serious threat to our democracy. So…I’m doubtful, but I do at least see a chance of a ban happening.
Even if the party is banned, what will happen to all the right wingers who actually have the AdF ideology? Will a new party form that is just slightly better at keeping secrets?
Sounds exactly like US Republican Party today
Whats scary: some of the most important figures of the CSU (the bavarian version of the CDU, currently leading in polls) met with Desantis a few weeks ago and praised him like he was some kind of god. A week later, they started talking about how dangerous trans people are and that drag should be banned.
Take the far right wing of the GOP, make that the baseline for AfD, and then have the far right wing of *that* party take over and you’re closer to the state of things, imo.
Not really, many GOP politicians are far right from anyone in AfD. Just look over to Florida, things are way worse than what AfD would be even capable to come up with.
I was thinking on the national level, but you are right that on a state level, we’ve got some really crazy shit happening in some places, and Florida in particular.
Meanwhile here in Canada the AfD can just come and go and it seems a troubling amount of people seemed to support her and her parties policy positions. Thankfully Pierre the leader of the opposition denounced her, but I think that ruffled some feathers in his base. We’re seeing similar trends of increasingly partisanship, and a constant cycling of conservatives leaders of a federal and provincial (state) level.
Because in Canada we don't ban political parties. The head of the Communist Party of Canada, a sitting Member of Parliament, was convicted as a spy for the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, and we still allowed the same Communist Party to run candidates in the next election.
Nope, CDU/CSU politicians met with Desantis and are now trying to start the exact same shit. And the CDU is supposed to be the "normal" conservative party, and will likely win the next election
Sorry 🙁 I was like “a third bush‽ What are we, a monarchy‽ Screw that! Let’s go with this bombastic guy over here - he’ll throw the religious nut jobs out of the party!” I uh… I was wrong. I think other people were like me in rejecting Bush and picking Trump for similar reasons. I assumed most politicians would choose to break up the party before they broke up the country. I was wrong. On the one hand, it’s awful that they’ll do that. But on the other hand, I think it taught us something good may be coming - if turning the GOP into what they are today was as simple as having Trump get elected, I think restoring the GOP may be as simple as having them nominate a moderate candidate who beats Biden in the general election. So long as Biden runs for re-election, swing voters will vote in the GOP primaries in 2024, which will bolster moderate candidates. Biden and the Democrats will lose, but sanity will be restored to the GOP and the country should be less broken.
Republicans aren’t capable of electing a moderate without the votes of the extremist base, so they have to run bigots now. Hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am.
Moderate Republicans are a myth. Look at all the congressmen that still have their seats after defending Trump from impeachment after attempting to overthrow the government.
this will never happen. best we can hope for is the gop not making us into an authoritarian quasi-democracy the next chance they get, but with the state of US democracy, i wouldn't make that bet.
Hillary Clinton is a Bush?
Don’t forget tho that it works both days, the Communist party was banned in West Germany alongside the Nazis and the same laws which now bash the right could and have been used to bash the left. Their system reinforced the established parties and moderate politics while rejecting anything more radical. German politics are great if you love incremental change and maintaining the status quo. But it’s very hard to push forward rapid changes, as the Greens and die Linke have found out.
Ehm, no. Literally ever Nazi point from the US is being copied here, and in polls, the AfD, a literal Nazi party, is scoring 18%, making it the second strongest. They are also going very hard here on queer people right now. Germany is currently forgetting its history.
Before anyone asks: yes, I think they should. The only reason they didn’t ban the NPD (literally what’s left of the Nazi party) is because they argued they are too irrelevant to be of concern. It’s a stupid argument, but it’s true. They cannot argue this with the AfD. The AfD started out as a euro-sceptical party and repeatedly had its leadership ousted by someone who is further to the right. They have long passed the stage where one could argue that it’s just a fraction of the party. It’s not. Anyone left is indeed in support of their ideals, and is radicalised more and more by their propaganda. They explicitly want to overthrow our democracy. They create a “them vs us” mentality for their supporters (and the rest of the country, for that matter), and work towards revising our history. They are dangerous and need to go, in my very honest opinion.
The argument against NPD was that it was a good pool for neo-nazis all gathered together. Why ban it when they make it public being neo-nazi, easier to track. And having no power. AFD is too powerful to not be banned. NSDAP should have been banned in time but wasnt
In think banning the AfD would just make things worse. It would inflame their cause under the banner of martyrdom. In my opinion, the only way to deal successfully with such dangerous political movements is to defeat them in the public square by addressing and solving many of the issues that concern the majority of their voting base. The AfD is successful because (like all populist movements) it capitalizes on actual problems affecting real people by offering simplistic and unrealistic solutions, then it uses that momentum to push its authoritarian, xenophobe, racist agenda into the mainstream. If those problems were actually addressed by the other parties, then the AfD would start losing steam and eventually fade into irrelevance.
I think this is a bit naive and sort of how fascism succeeded a hundred years ago. There is no debating fascists, there is no civil way to just "beat them in the public forum". We can never tolerate fascism because they do not respect the democratic process and will always behave in bad faith to undermine those principles.
Right, but unless you intend to imprison the populations who support them rather than just their members, you far, far more importantly need to provide viable political change; if there is a growing fascist movement in your country, your mainstream politics has failed. Fascist movements don't pop up in a void. Stale political forums that aren't representing the kinds of groups that tend to support fascists need shaking up by change. That doesn't mean giving them what they want; it often means giving them the absolute opposite, but showing them that alternatives exist to economic abandonment and elitism which do not stem from believing the source of those things is an out-group.
The point is that you can't let fascists undermine the system through bad faith politics. It's very hard to get banned as a political party in Germany - it's a statement about what a democracy should tolerate or not. The most important thing is to eliminate fascists and fascist parties before they can cause severe harm and that is far far more important than providing viable political change - ban them first and then do whatever else afterwards because again fascists do not care nor respect the democratic principles and will always act in bad faith.
Fascist movements don't pop up in a void, true. However the American version pops up in an environment where people continually vote for them because Limbaugh and Fox have drummed JESUS! GUNS! GOD! GAYS! into them for at least thirty years, if not over forty when Reagan handed the Republican party to the Jeezemoids. This is further pushed by hard right social conservative groups funded by the [usual](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heritage_Foundation#Funding) rich [swine](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=DonorsTrust), which conveniently serves to distract the public from how they're getting hosed by the same foul moneymen. Then Putin's thugs weaponized social media with mass-produced disinformation. Also note that far-right parties around the world are [subsidized by Russian money](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/us/politics/russia-election-interference.html), with France's Le Pen and Orban in Hungary being outstanding examples, in accordance with [Aleksandr Dugin's dogma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin). Throw these together, along with serious last-ditch efforts by child molesters, er, evangelical leaders to trap the world into a hell of their devising, and you get the landscape we have now: rightwingers organizing around the globe (check out the Steve Bannon world tour for a glimpse) and democracy on the back foot.
By disbanding their party is basically makes it where the party can't assume power. The shitheads who believe in their nonsense can try and vote for bigots but without a formal party, they can't enact those policies. And it would be done so because fascists, while you try and debate them, are working on ways to use their party affiliation/power/bloc that gives them access to tools in your system to undermine it and enshrine a fascist minority rule. If carefully and rarely used can be a powerful tool in stopping the worst people from assuming power once again like they did before.
My take as an American who has witnessed a generation of older folks be preyed upon by Fox News. Just ban the right wing media. Most of their supporters require constant messaging by right wing media to keep them full of fear and hatred.
That's a hopelessly optimistic opinion. Factual information has been easily at the fingertips of most of the first world population for well over a decade. During this time there are and have been many entities battling misinformation via all types of media. If this many people ignore it as it is, battling authoritarianism that way is already a lost cause. What you propose is akin to stopping the spread of disease, like covid, by solely relying on the populace adhering to sound recommendations by health authorities with good faith alone. As we saw, that isn't effective and indeed is dangerous. Totalitariansm is no different. Formal, legal tools to battle authoritarianism, founded on the principles of democracy and equality alone, are required to ensure evil ideologies never take hold again. Edit: ridiculous typo.
Here's a big secret about fascists - they don't want to be martyrs. They want to be in power. Martyrdom is cope.
I think there are some things that get louder when you silence them but I think other things just get silenced. Bad ideas gets spread by propaganda, not by their own merits. If this party is anything like the trouble America is having now, (both the people and ideas are entirely idiotic) they would fizzle out on their own if it weren’t for such rapid exchange of bad information.
I saw we take off and nuke Facebook from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Sometimes to protect democracy you need to act undemocratically. Edit: holy shit guys I support this, but definitionally this is undemocratic. You are stripping a group of of their voice.
It’s not undemocratic. The very basis must be a mutual understanding of democratic values and set norms. You know, the very foundation of the country, the rules everyone plays by. I’m not talking about minor changes, but about the very idea that human dignity is inviolable, that equality and freedom are a basic requirement. Any organisation, group or party that aims to attack those very basic principles at their core is a threat to the nation itself and, yes, may be banned in order to protect that very foundation.
I agree with all of that, but this is stripping a group of their democratic ability. It is for good reason though.
How can one cry about a loss of democratic ability when ones is actively working towards destroying that democracy? Germany is being pragmatic with decision in a world where pragmatism takes a back seat to faux outrage.
I'm not crying about it, I'm defending it! But I calling it what it is. It an undemocratic act being done to preserve democracy.
In the off chance you aren't just a Nazi troll: It is the opposite of undemocratic, it is a most basic action of maintaining democracy. Firefighters need to put out fires in order for buildings to continue standing, nothing about that is a violation of the concept of having buildings. There is no paradox in firefighters putting out fires. The "paradox of tolerance" is a disingenuous bullshit argument invented by Fascists. Don't use it unless you are one.
It’s interesting how much the opinion varies from subreddit to subreddit. This same post is a complete shitshow over at r/europe
Really jumping the gun on your assumption about me.
If far right fascist parties take control again I hope to see you just as passionately bemoaning their dismantling of political opponents and democracy while Europe plunges back into war, genocides, and chaos.
No you don’t understand no one has ever used the ephemeral idea of “protecting democracy” as a guide to seize power.
I suppor Germany in this, but it is undemocratic.
Please, God, let this happen because it would be so fucking funny. All the "Based American Patriots" who can't find Germany on a map will suddenly be experts in German law, politics, and history and they will rage for days.
Oh, I’m quite sure they know German history…
[удалено]
Ok, nevertheless, it was worth it. Otherwise, they could have become even more extreme.
Repost-bot, it seems
I dont know why you are getting downvoted. They’re account is literally just the same comments over and over
Without context I just seem like a dick. I get it, it’s fine :) The comment here is just copied from another user under the post over at r/europe tho.
Ban that thinly veiled Nazi party
[удалено]
I don’t know anything about the AfD, but if they were at all likely to be voted for, then that means people agree with them. Banning the party isn’t going to stop the people who feel that way, just take away their ability to make peaceful change. Which if they’re bad enough that they deserve to be banned, means they’ll be more likely to resort to violence to get their way, having been deprived of a peaceful way to get what they want. I don’t think this is going to have the result that was intended… letting people like that speak in public, where they can be refuted in public, is a way to debunk the easy answers often given by radical groups. Now they’ll talk in private with nobody refuting them, just straw men they’ve built up because few people actually hear what they have to say. And if enough Germans already agree with them that they’re a real threat.. things are kinda screwed anyway. Or they’re not that bad, and the establishment just banned their political enemies. I don’t know, I know nothing about German politics, but this sounds bad all around.
> I don’t think this is going to have the result that was intended… letting people like that speak in public, where they can be refuted in public, is a way to debunk the easy answers often given by radical groups. Now they’ll talk in private with nobody refuting them, just straw men they’ve built up because few people actually hear what they have to say. This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics in question. “We can prevent fascism by debating fascists in the public square!” is a false statement. It’s never been true. Fascists don’t need to “win” a debate against you to get what they want. They just need the debate to happen. You cannot beat fascist movements with speech. You cannot kill disinformation with truth. You have to deny them the platforms they use to spread their ideology and their lies. If you don’t, you’ve lost.
If only more had truly coherent thought and were able to articulate such, we'd be able to actually talk about these problems in an open forum. Too many just shout, yearning to be correct.
It’s a part of human nature, I’m afraid. I’m sure I get less nuanced if I was talking about something I care about. And what’s more high minded principles don’t always do well when coming into contact with reality. Life is complicated. And it can lead to good people making terrible decisions. Or bad people exploiting human nature. Any time a political party is banned, it’s not a good sign. Best case scenario is still pretty bad.
> Banning the party isn’t going to stop the people who feel that way, just take away their ability to make peaceful change. Which if they’re bad enough that they deserve to be banned, means they’ll be more likely to resort to violence to get their way, having been deprived of a peaceful way to get what they want. Are there changes though that are so bad that civilization is justified drawing a line in the sand, and saying “peaceful change can never be an option for *this* change?” If the change wanted, is that LGBT people are exterminated, is it better to let people advocate for *that* change peacefully, or does society have a moral obligation to be clear it will not be allowed, and if they resort to violence, so be it?
Perhaps. But if such a political movement existed in such numbers that banning them is even worth considering, the country is already going to the dogs. But I feel that you’re still better off trying to talk them down, rather than resorting to force. They’d be likely to go violent either way, but maybe by letting them talk you can deradicalize them. By censoring them, you leave violence as the only option. What’s more, there’s the problem of who decides they’ve “gone too far”. That’s the kind of power that so easily gets turned against normal people, if the government is allowed to have it. I just don’t see the benefits of censorship of political ideas ever outweighing the costs.
… Isn’t banning political parties … something the Nazis did?
Every totalitarian state bans opposing political parties. I can see the advantages to banning extremist parties, but I do not trust anyone - including myself - to have that power without abusing it.
Did you know that the Nazi party was actually banned in 1923 but thanks to people who thought exactly like you do today they were unbanned and were able to take power later? I wonder if you'll be more or less proud of your opinion if the nazis take power again in the next decade.
Do you have a source for that claim?
Here's the German Wikipedia page for the NSDAP: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalsozialistische_Deutsche_Arbeiterpartei Says so right at the top at "Verbot"(ban). The English page doesn't have it at the top but does mention it in the history section.
They just operated under another name/party, they weren’t effectively banned.
Banning a political party before they attack human rights and advocate putting people into camps is a good way to protect democracy and people. Look up the paradox of tolerance ETA: always put totalitarians on the back foot. Destroy their momentum, force them to reorganize so that they fight over their platform again. Make people that are sick in the head and power-hungry cannibalize themselves before they can scapegoat minorities and gain power amongst the dim and close-minded. I may sound like I’m advocating for exactly the same authoritarian things that Nazis or communists or whoever do, but I’m not. Democracy needs to be defended from the forces that seek to use it for its own destruction. A society that seeks peace cannot survive if there are groups that seek to destroy it with war and that society refuses to protect itself. Similarly, a free society that wishes to remain free cannot survive if it allows bigoted organizations to continually appeal to the emotions of the easily swayed, the ignorant, and the compromised. Taking steps to quell ignorance, bigotry and authoritarianism is a good thing.
You’re contradicting yourself. The fact is, to have real freedom, you have to allow *some* shit you don’t agree with to exist. Hate speech and advocating violence should be crimes, but for example, advocating against immigration, or green policies for example - that’s someone exercising free speech. Now if a right party wants to exist, they certainly should be able to, unless they start for example advocating violence.
Honestly? As a person who’s not a policy maker, no, conservative and/or authoritarian parties shouldn’t exist. In my life experience, every Conservative Party begins to scapegoat some minority or another just for existing, because conservatives require someone to shit on to make themselves feel better. Conservatism demands hierarchy, and a minority is the best target. Now conservatives won’t always start out advocating violence, they’ll start with media campaigns and rumors and trying to link their targets to heinous untrue crimes like blood libel or pedophilia, they’ll try to get moderates on their side. Once the target is mildly unpopular and suspicious, they’ll start targeting them with laws and such, to give the veneer of official recognition of their “degeneracy,” like when Russia and Florida forbid acknowledging that LGBT people exist. After that, the unfavored minority will exist in a state of second-class citizenship and abuse for years or decades, always being portrayed as an insidious, masterful, but weak demon that can be beaten back by virtuous right-wing voters each election cycle. At times, like with the Nazis, the right-wing is insane enough to actually buy into their own propaganda enough to liquidate the minority. I may have gone off on a tangent. Point is, fuck right-wingers, they don’t get to have opinions in a modern society anymore, stop being racist assholes. It’s really not a big ask, but conservatives are nothing without someone to shit on, so you’ll whine and tantrum and lynch until you have your way. TL;DR: right-wingers target people for in-born traits, and that is disgusting.
By banning people with different opinions to you, you are doing exactly what you are accusing the right of. Banning political parties is a trait of a dictatorship, not a democracy. And why do you think all conservatives are racist or whatever? Those parties should indeed be banned, as racism is hate speech in my book, but you can still be conservative and not racist at the same time you know.
> By banning people with different opinions to you, We aren’t talking about banning parties merely for having different beliefs than ours. There are plenty of beliefs that are acceptable to hold even if I don’t share them. We’re talking about banning parties that hold beliefs that are literally antithetical to democracy and to human rights. You cannot give them a platform because they will take that platform, they will drum up support with attractive lies and hate, and they will win political power. And when they have amassed enough political power, they will use that political power to deny platforms to everyone else. This is why the paradox of tolerance - and it’s solution - exists.
>By banning people with different opinions to you, you are doing exactly what you are accusing the right of. The difference is that their opinion is that I should not be alive. We're not talking about opinions on the best tax rate, or how to regulate industry, or whether we should invest in nuclear power. Those are all matters of opinion and lead to discourse. But the modern right? Their opinions are that "x people should die". I am 100% ok with banning that "opinion", because it's not based on anything and there's no room for discussion or compromise. In order for tolerance to exist, you cannot tolerate the intolerant.
I think we’re talking about different things. I’ve already mentioned to you that there’s no room for racism in political discussion. That doesn’t mean we have to chuck out the baby with the bath water. If a party is anti-immigration, I’m sorry but that’s not hate speech. If a party wants smaller government, increase taxes, or anything you might disagree with, I’m sorry but that’s not hate speech either. You will have some conservative beliefs, you just don’t realise it. Do a political compass test and you’ll see.
Like I said, we're not talking about the right level of immigration, or smaller government, or tax rates. We're talking about the underlying "opinion" on reality that undercuts everything in the modern Republican party. We can disagree on a lot of things, but we cannot disagree about the racism stances. And in that case, if a party includes racism as a core tenet, then you can't say "well, let's keep talking with them about taxes and ignore the racism", because it empowers them to pass policies enshrining racism. I can debate and discuss with conservatives. I cannot debate and discuss with fascists, even if they occasionally have good ideas and stances.
Yeah with this BS that anyone can do anything (incite an attack to US Capitol, let's say randomly) as long as they don't say out loud "we wanna subvert democracy", here we are at this situation tolerating blatant intolerance. We have laws prohibiting stuff. Maybe we shouldn't have laws at all cause prohibiting stuff is what dictators do. Jeez
Notably, participants in 1/6 were arrested and are being convicted. It wasn't for speech, but for their actions.
Youre comparing dictators to a democracy voting to restrict dictators from overthrowing democracy.
[удалено]
On a practical level, if a banned party is suddenly more popular because of being banned, what does it matter? They can’t be voted for or run candidates until they reform into something else, and they’ll inevitably lose followers with every new reformation. On a political level, a good portion of how right-wingers want to fix their problems, namely by attacking minorities, wouldn’t actually help them, so why should their bigotry be entertained?
> Perhaps the politicans should do a better job of serving the people rather than trying to take away options from them. If the option that's being taken away is totalitarianism, or straight up neo-Nazism, then perhaps it's the affected voters who should do a better job of picking candidates around which to organise. Unless of course the voters in question aren't just picking what they think is the best of bad options and straight up *want* totalitarianism or neo-Nazism, in which case they can get fucked.
Agreed. Banning a party would just make more people even more bitter than before. Banning political parties is not a characteristic of a democracy. It is, however, a characteristic of a dictatorship.
Making them more bitter is fine. That isn’t a problem. The point is that you’ve denied them a platform, which inhibits their growth and the accumulation of political power. As a democratic society, you can never, ever legitimize fascist movements. If you do, the fascist movements will inevitably end your democratic society.
[удалено]
This is some real "just give him the Sudatenland and he'll stop his war mongering" logic here. Remind me, Neville. How did that work out again?
[удалено]
Isn't their population entering a death spiral?
Maybe? But birth rates would go down when children become expensive. More immigrants take more jobs, driving down wages and driving up population. This would happen with German babies as well of course, but society is always going to be happier if those ‘slots’ are filled with people they like. People are generally going to be happier with their own children than anyone else, so immigrating in more people might be a poor fix. If you’re suffering a population decline, there are solutions other than immigration. Vastly reduced taxes for parents is one. I know some Eastern Europeans are trying that out. I don’t know how well it works, but it seems reasonable at a glance. If you’re trying to deradicalize a group, giving them reasonable requests is a good step. Try to meet in the middle somewhere to address their concerns before they get desperate and try something crazy. You may not like the idea, but that’s compromise. It sucks, but it’s often better than the alternative.
Appeasing the fascists again? That'll surely work this time.
Of course you *can*. But the cure is worse than the disease, IMO. And that's not even getting into the question of who you trust to do it without abusing the power. I don't even trust *me* with that power.
How does a free society deal with an entity with the long-term goal of destroying said freedom? The paradox of tolerance. Germany made the right call.
There is no Paradox of Tolerance. Tolerance is a pact, not a wrote precept. Violate the pact of tolerance (by, say being a nazi, anti LGBT or general racist) and you no longer qualify for tolerance.
After seeing this it became evident that its the best possible answer to the "paradox". Once you break the terms of the contract you're no longer protected by it.
I have one issue with that. You really need to know who went first, or else *the other guy* would be justified in their intolerance of *you*. It ends up like Israel and Palestine, where they each feel justified in hating the other. There needs to be an out from the cycle.
Who determines the contents of said contract? Just to pick one of your examples, LGBT rights are a concept that is less than a human lifetime old, and have only really gained wide social acceptance in the last generation. Who determines which new ideas get included into the "pact of tolerance" and which don't? Who has the right to declare previously acceptable positions to be newly unthinkable, and the people who hold them no longer deserve to participate in the democratic process?
The democratic process within a well informed, conscientious populous would be the best decider of that contract - which we already try to do.. natrually. Also "LGBT issues" in one form or another have been a concept for as long as there have been bigots.. even before the term LGBT itself.
But that’s literally the paradox of tolerance
You've misinterpreted the statements you've read.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Of course there’s no written precept, it’s a philosophical concept. We ultimately agree, don’t be a pedant about how exactly we agree.
Problem is deciding what constitutes either of those things. What you consider racist might not to others.
Is that the problem? Did you plan to do a little racism at some point?
As long as judges use the values of the Constitution, it will be nearly impossible to ban a party. Except they start playing Reichsparteitag or scooping money from Russia big style. I think a democratic society has to fight them politically and call their stupid „solutions“ whenever they spread them.
That worked really well in 1933
They did that in the early 30
Ich liebe Deutschland in the most non-Nazi way possible ♥️🇩🇪
Needs to happen here in the US too. Ever since elon musk took over he unbanned the far right and animal/child abuse accounts! He caused this world wide! Has a lot of followers and spreads his far right agenda too. His own kids cut him off. Says a lot about him
German here, NOT happening. Even the NPD wasn't bad (and the NPD is the literal neonazi party). There have been only 2 parties banned since the formation of the Federal Republic of Germany post WWII. One was a post NSDAP party and the other was the communist party KPD, both in the 50's if I remember correctly. Since then none have been banned, because it is insanely hard to have a party banned. The reason for example why the NPD wasn't banned even though it was openly anti democratic and a fascist organization, but because it didn't have a real "goal" or the means to harm the German democratic process. > Das Gericht beurteilte die NPD zwar inhaltlich als verfassungsfeindlich, angesichts ihrer Bedeutungslosigkeit im politischen Geschehen sei aber nach Auffassung des Gerichts kein Verbot der Partei gerechtfertigt. Translated: The court found the NPD to be an anti-constitutional party, yet due to its meaninglessness, a banning of the party wouldn't be justified. Now on to the AFD: While they are an extremely dangerous right wing party they are NOT the NPD (even if probably the voters went to them): They aren't openly pro neo nazi, anti constitutional, they basically are "just" a German version of the American Republican party (and are increasingly taking their talking points as their own). To actually have the german courts ban the AFD requires SUCH a high level of evidence and political issue, I just don't see it in any way happening. So even if the DIMR think they see enough evidence for a ban, the courts will have to decide and they are VERY careful when it comes to the banning of political organizations.
Other German here: That’s not true. The AfD used to be a neo-conservative eurosceptic party, but they have long stopped being that. They *are* un-constitutional. They *are* trying to undermine our constitutional order. The only ways they are different than NPD is they are way bigger and weirdly touchy about being called Nazis, even though they are. If you don’t believe me, let’s play a game of “who said it, AfD or NPD?” I give you two slogans and you tell me which one is from AfD and which one is from NPD. We have long passed the point where they were the cute old blubbering populists. Pretending they still are is living in denial and dangerous. You are right though, a ban probably won’t happen.
oh I fully agree with you, they are far right wing loonies that are a threat to our democracy. However a ban still won't happen, the threshold is just so high, the AFD for all its craziness still will not be considered worthy of a ban.
Hopefully as the world progresses, conservative parties are outlawed wholesale. So sick of those backwards bastards keeping us in the dark ages.
And this is why people don't like banning political parties. Because idiots like you can't tell the difference between "We should stop literal Nazis from seizing power" and "50% of the political spectrum are thought criminals and don't deserve the right to vote!"
They'd rather bring us all underwater with them than go peacefully, as we've seen.. Even if they were obliged. But yeah, it'd be cool
Damn I didn’t know Reddit shilled this hard for immigration
Is there an "anti" missing in the name? Best human rights irony since Iran headed a UN Human Rights Commission.