Against all those against it.
Against all who oppose it.
Reminder: the red sentences are links – click on them to access the related critique article in context.
When opinions within democratic plurality do not conform to the dominant view of the state apparatus, they are silenced—or at least restricted. I do not mean this in a Querdenker manner, but in the context of the political crisis in which this state finds itself.
The traffic light coalition of FDP, SPD, and Greens is the most unpopular in German history. Overall, only about 20% of people here express being “very satisfied or satisfied” with the work of the federal government, while 74% say they are “less or not at all satisfied” (the rest abstain, Statista). Even among supporters of the traffic light parties, only 49% (SPD), 49% (Greens), and 17% (FDP) express satisfaction with the federal government.
Dissatisfaction with politics will not change with representatives from other parties. A CDU/CSU and Greens coalition will fundamentally pursue the same aims as the traffic light government. Even a coalition of AfD and CDU will not alter the current political status quo, which already fundamentally competes with far-right ideas.
It is clear that the powers and decisions of bourgeois politicians, who are primarily responsible for safeguarding economic growth, are based on the needs of domestic capital owners. The contradiction between the people and the ruling class is unavoidable in a capitalist society, especially because the principle of bourgeois society fundamentally differs from the basic needs of humans as a species.
The motto of bourgeois politics is capital growth—that is clear. Therefore, productivity (measured as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per hour worked) has steadily increased in Germany over the past decades, while living standards, working hours, and wages stagnated, and living costs as well as income inequality skyrocketed.
The de facto mission of bourgeois politics is independent of individual party concerns—“economic growth” is a euphemism for enriching the few, as shown by the contradiction between rising productivity and stagnant living standards. This fundamental contradiction is the reason why Germany’s current political crisis is deepening.
On one side, there is the fascistization of parts of German society, which, with threats regarding the end of the war in Ukraine, seem to endanger German investments and loans in Ukraine. (Be sure to click here to understand the capitalist connections behind the rise of the AfD.) On the other side, there is the unexpectedly emerging solidarity regarding the Palestinian resistance, which threatens to partially expose the carefully camouflaged German imperialism. Connected to this Palestine solidarity is disillusionment with German foreign policy, possibly with the German state itself.
To maintain the status quo of liberal democracy and avoid potential disillusionment, the ruling class is gradually identifying and targeting perceived threats.
Compact and Junge Welt
It is obvious that we do not mourn the fascist, AfD-aligned “Compact” magazine of anti-Semite Elsässer; but it is clear that the sudden ban on Compact is a reaction to the societal polarization rooted in material contradictions. The Compact magazine was not banned in the usual way through a press law basis at the federal or state level, but via association law, since the Compact magazine GmbH would violate Article 9 II of the Basic Law as well as § 3 of the Association Law, because it would oppose constitutional order. Additionally, the formation of a “replacement organization” was also prohibited.
Using the constitutional law to ban a political medium is considered questionable by legal consensus—partly because it is, de facto, a ban through the back door, and partly because it is generally problematic to use association bans as a vehicle to achieve aims that cannot be attained through the proper legal channels. The mere appearance that the rule of law overextends its possibilities ultimately strengthens right-wing extremism and populism.
Faeser’s claim that the ban against Compact magazine is a “harsh blow against the right-wing extremist scene” is more than naive, given that the right-wing extremist scene is actually strengthened by portraying itself as victims.
Similarly, it remains questionable that Junge Welt will continue to be listed as “left-wing extremist” in the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV). On Thursday (July 19), the Berlin Administrative Court issued the judgment in the lengthy legal dispute between Junge Welt (or the Verlag 8. Mai) and the Federal Republic. The court’s ruling that mentioning a purely publication medium in the report of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution is a one-time, entirely misused measure, is even acknowledged by reactionary politicians and persecutors of the case: “I do not see any purpose in mentioning a publication organ in an Office for the Protection of the Constitution report (…) The executive’s tenor ‘Don’t read that, it’s extremist’ does not fit in a liberal Rechtsstaat” (Wolfgang Kubicki, FDP). The court’s reasoning largely echoes that of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, pointing out (to be summarized) that Junge Welt’s “marxist worldview” and its recognition of class in society violate the liberal democratic principle, implying that in the FRG, all people have the same opportunities.
The continued mention of Junge Welt as “left-wing extremist” poses potential difficulties for the magazine regarding advertisers, publications, and general publicity.
In content, the magazines are not very similar; it is clear, however, that the attacks on both are clear reactions to societal polarization and the resulting disillusionment with the Free Democratic Basic Law (FDGO). For Compact and Junge Welt, these are particularly issues related to foreign policy, such as a critical assessment of support for Ukraine, the genocide in Gaza, and American hegemony, which make the magazines vulnerable to attack. This is evident because far-right magazines with compatible foreign policy views, such as Junge Freiheit, continue to operate freely and remain outside the report of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Even a publication like Konkret, which mostly shares the same domestic political theses as Junge Welt—differing mainly on foreign policy, Israel, and America—remains outside the scope of the report.
Regarding Junge Freiheit: we recall the 2005 ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court, which ruled in favor of the far-right Junge Freiheit against its mention in the report of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution—and won! The court found that mere criticism of constitutional values is not sufficient to classify an organization as aiming at the constitution’s overthrow. Furthermore, the mention of individual articles deemed anti-constitutional does not suffice to label the entire newspaper as right-wing extremist. It also concluded that the magazine does not “adopt” its published articles as its own, nor does it openly distance itself from them. Interestingly, the report on Junge Welt states: “The jW does not explicitly endorse non-violence. Instead, it repeatedly provides a public platform for individuals and organizations advocating politically motivated crimes.”
Today, it is different: both the law and its application are dependent on the material—and thus social—contradictions within a state—and the contradictions in Germany have rarely been sharper.
How exactly press bans are supposed to resolve the social contradictions manifested in societal polarization remains unclear.