Reversed Anti-Fascism
Reversed Anti-Fascism
Reminder: The words marked in red are links that lead to corresponding criticism articles.
Banning the AfD would be like dogs pooping in the kitchen, but you only swat the flies – the shit remains lying there.
In recent days, hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets to protest against the AfD and, in most cases, to support a ban on the AfD.
This is more than encouraging, as the silent majority, after the Potsdam meeting (which by the way closely resembles Hitler’s speech before the Düsseldorf Industry Club), apparently has had enough and wants to use their voice to protest the fascist tendencies of capitalism.
However, when bourgeois politicians like Olaf, who says “We must finally deport on a large scale,” and Baerbock, who says “No matter what my voters think,” march alongside the demonstrators, the question arises:
What is the ruling understanding of fascism; and isn’t this hypocrisy?
In the political understanding of bourgeoisie, fascism, along with nationalism and racism, is a symptom without a cause.
The AfD has existed only for a few years; before that, everything was fine. Sure, refugees are a problem, but the AfD exaggerates – that’s the bourgeois counter-offensive against the evil side of their own medal.
According to current polls, the AfD is the second strongest party in several federal states, especially in the East.
Nationwide, forecasts predict around 20% of voter support.
It must be said that the idea that most AfD voters choose the party out of frustration is just as false as the idea that every AfD voter is a Nazi.
Like any political ideology, the AfD’s is based on material conditions from which it originates.
Furthermore, every decision and attitude, as well as history as a whole, is based on material conditions, which need to be analyzed specifically – history is not determined by ideas.
The ideas of the AfD—such as hardcore ethnonationalism, radical market policies, and a conservative societal model—are all consequences of the ongoing crisis of this system.
A proof of this is East Germany itself; although often portrayed in media as if the stupid East Germans just have a dictatorship complex, the real reasons for the rise of right-wing extremism in the East are clear to analyze.
The people of the former GDR have been deceived and robbed by the system since the illegal dissolution of their state; the Treuhand (trust agency) cost one-third of the citizens their jobs after reunification, over half of all enterprises closed, and living standards dropped significantly—as Merkel claimed as late as 2020; the reunification is not yet complete.
People in East Germany still earn about 12,000 euros less than those in the West, and this state, which they once called home, is still vilified and dirtied.
This does not mean that AfD voters are socialists, but it does mean that they have been deceived by this system from the start—that is the fertile ground for right-wing extremism in the East, as I already wrote in “The masses (not) reached”; when this federal system explains with arrogance why they should be grateful for their current life—and no leftist stands by to explain why it’s not so—then the foreigner becomes the scapegoat.
What would, for example, a ban on the AfD in Saxony do, where the party is forecasted to be the strongest with 34%?
We can hardly say how many of the AfD voters truly believe in the party’s values—however, based on the study “Who Voted for the AfD and Why” by Bayerischer Rundfunk, 47% of AfD voters say they support the party out of conviction.
This means two things: about half of the people vote out of conviction, the other half out of protest—both conclusions lead to the same question:
In case of a party ban: would these 47% then no longer be Nazis? And would the 53% of protest voters suddenly be satisfied with the government, or would they vote for The Left out of protest?
Of course not.
When the Nazi Party (NSDAP) was banned in 1923, what happened? The NSDAP came back; reorganized and more successful than ever.
A party like the AfD, which calls itself “anti-establishment,” cannot be banned, because a ban would only confirm its position for the voters.
The existence of the AfD is a consequence of the contradictions of this system, intensified since the reunification.
Under the guise of being an anti-establishment alternative, the AfD, like the NSDAP before it, functions as a manifestation of dissatisfaction with the existing conditions, which stem from contradictions within this capitalist system.
This connects it to the “them up there” rhetoric and finds a scapegoat in migration, which is again caused by contradictions within the system.
Instead of nonsensical debates about banning the party, political consciousness should be used to uncover and clarify contradictions; the AfD is not the cause, but the symptom.