German elections 2017: Angela Merkel wins fourth term but AfD makes gains

[Tommy]

On 24th of September. CDU (Merkel) will rule us four more years, I guarantee it. 

[Batard]

Will she encourage more posting in the Mafia War threads? 😉

[Fairy In Boots]

Literally fucked in both ends with this choice 

[Inverted]

22 hours ago, Fairy In Boots said:

Literally fucked in both ends with this choice 

Yup they can either persist with the best quality of life of any major European nation, a stable and constructive parliamentary system, and unmatched international respect, or... keep all those things, and also try and bring in some more rent controls and pension protection. 

If only they had somebody like May to vote for. 

[Honey Honey]

I find it curious that Merkel, who used the threat of starvation to form authoritarian austerity rule and expand a corrupt banking and corporate empire, to the admiration of European conservatives, is now viewed as anything but repugnant and no longer a candidate to be jailed because she rattled conservatives by letting in a million refugees, whilst those conservatives think the threat of starvation, trashing economies and driving thousands to suicide was ok but letting in some muslims was where the line was crossed.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

The American right wing is taking a page out of the people who got them their president: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/09/20/meddling-germany-election-not-russia-but-u-s-right-wing/676142001/

But I doubt they're as effective as the FSB.

[Tommy]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2017/sep/24/german-elections-2017-angela-merkel-cdu-spd-afd-live-updates

 

Nazis in the German parliament for the first time in over 70 years. 

[Fairy In Boots]

On 9/19/2017 at 6:15 PM, Inverted said:

Yup they can either persist with the best quality of life of any major European nation, a stable and constructive parliamentary system, and unmatched international respect, or... keep all those things, and also try and bring in some more rent controls and pension protection. 

If only they had somebody like May to vote for. 

Letting in 1 million people in a year is not stable, it's "stable" for now but she's fucked them down the line. At this point denying the catastrophic effects mass immigration does to a country when it's not properly organised or managed is fast becoming the definition of stupidity.

13 hours ago, Tsubasa said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2017/sep/24/german-elections-2017-angela-merkel-cdu-spd-afd-live-updates

 

Nazis in the German parliament for the first time in over 70 years. 

Center right really your normal parties are just that far left and that deep into the EU disaster you've lost all perception of reality and all concept of national sovereignty 

[Honey Honey]

I don't think a corporate totalitarian like Merkel is anywhere near the left wing. She is the centre right. The Afd are the right wing fringe. 

I agree with the economist Branko Milanovic's suggestion that the rise of the Afd could be a sign that Germany is finally over the Nazi era and has normalised as a democracy to have a proper fringe right wing within a proportionate representation system. 

Certainly protesting will not make voters ditch the Afd, it will strengthen their bond with them.

[Faithcore]

No country in the world needs a fucking right wing. Can't believe what i'm reading here. That's proper Nazi talk, congratulations.

[nudge+]

7 minutes ago, Faithcore said:

No country in the world needs a fucking right wing. Can't believe what i'm reading here. That's proper Nazi talk, congratulations.

One of the characteristics crucial to "democracy" is the freedom to organize political groups or parties, even if they represent a small radical minority, and for such a party to nominate their members to run for office, whether you like it or not. People can't just throw their toys out of the pram if they don't like the outcome of an electoral process.

"Nazi" accusations get thrown around way too easily, by the way. Right wing or left wing, both extremes are equally shite.

[Faithcore]

49 minutes ago, nudge said:

"Nazi" accusations get thrown around way too easily, by the way. Right wing or left wing, both extremes are equally shite.

Excuse me, Inga. But who was talking about the left wing?

Nothing against you personally but I just can't listen to that argument anymore.

For me this is exactly the same as if someone told me that football is shit and I would answer him that listening to music is equally shit.

I am specifically talking about the right wing now and I simply cannot accept or tolerate that and that is the topic we have to deal with right now.

If you think that's not democratic then that is fair enough but I still stick to my opinion.

[Honey Honey]

1 hour ago, Faithcore said:

No country in the world needs a fucking right wing. Can't believe what i'm reading here. That's proper Nazi talk, congratulations.

Your post is closest to Nazi talk on the basis that it was a collectivist philosophy seeking to suppress individual liberty and force uniform thinking, which it seems you subscribe to. The Nazi's were left wing, the clue is in the name, National Socialists. The abuse, murder and slaughter was done in the pursuit of collectivism. Collectivism doesn't belong to any wing, it is a separate entity. 

The "right wing" exists naturally within the human population due to genetic and brain interaction with the environment. You cannot eradicate it. The only way to manage it is to understand its manifestations and move smartly. Hyperbolic intolerence of a social deviance does not work if the deviant individual has the ability to find solace in others. Which in this case it does. It makes the deviance worse, stronger, more resistant to change. It also has the propensity to lead to increasing levels of sympathy towards the deviance from those who don't take up the hysterical approach. That gives fringe right party's the opportunity to swell their numbers and grow. 

Placard waving protesting and scorn is just one type of approach and tactic to try and control social behaviour. I'm saying it is the wrong one for the situation.

[nudge+]

Just now, Faithcore said:

Excuse me, Inga. But who was talking about left wing?

Nothing aginst you personally but that's one of the things I hate the most about people coming from the right wing always coming up with this argument.

For me this is exactly the same as if someone told me that football is shit and I would answer him that listening to music is equally shit.

I am specifically talking about the right wing now and I simply cannot accept or tolerate that and that is the topic we have to deal with right now.

If you think that's not democratic then that is fair enough but I still stick to my opinion.

Sorry Lars, but I can't accept that analogy because far right wing and far left wing politics are just two sides of the same coin, and you can - and probably even should - discuss them both together if you're talking about the dangers of extreme politics. I am not right wing by the way, and I don't even like AfD, but I also don't like politicians from the other side of the spectrum who, as an example, participate in demos with slogans and banners such as "Deutschland, Du mieses Stück Scheiße" or "Deutschland verrecke", but there's no outrage and they still get what, 9% of the votes?..  
You don't want an anti-EU and anti-immigration party representatives in the Bundestag, that's your opinion and that's fair enough, but you have to accept that they got 13% votes and that's the end of it. Should probably be looking into the actual reasons WHY so many people voted for them instead, just as why right wing parties have been on the rise in the whole Europe in the last few years in general. Hint - it's not because they are Nazis...

[Fairy In Boots]

just imagine faithcore the discussion in 1939 Berlin some nazi said "no country in the world needs the left wing". You're that blinkered you don't realise what you've become 

[Faithcore]

I know when a debate is useless and we've certainly come to this point now.

I accept your opinons (although I completely disagree on most of it) and I want to leave it at that.

Bye bye

[Inverted]

6 hours ago, HoneyNUFC said:

Your post is closest to Nazi talk on the basis that it was a collectivist philosophy seeking to suppress individual liberty and force uniform thinking, which it seems you subscribe to. The Nazi's were left wing, the clue is in the name, National Socialists. The abuse, murder and slaughter was done in the pursuit of collectivism. Collectivism doesn't belong to any wing, it is a separate entity. 

The "right wing" exists naturally within the human population due to genetic and brain interaction with the environment. You cannot eradicate it. The only way to manage it is to understand its manifestations and move smartly. Hyperbolic intolerence of a social deviance does not work if the deviant individual has the ability to find solace in others. Which in this case it does. It makes the deviance worse, stronger, more resistant to change. It also has the propensity to lead to increasing levels of sympathy towards the deviance from those who don't take up the hysterical approach. That gives fringe right party's the opportunity to swell their numbers and grow. 

Placard waving protesting and scorn is just one type of approach and tactic to try and control social behaviour. I'm saying it is the wrong one for the situation.

Yup, were going to take our definition of socialism from... the Nazis. 

The party who got to power by liquidating anybody in their party who even flirted with actual worker-focused politics like Röhm and Strasser and whose first targets once in power were the SDP and KPD. 

And which political group did they draw their key early support in Parliament from? Oh yeah the aristocratic nationalists and Papen - who were allowed to exist relatively undisturbed throughout the Nazi regime whilst the entire German left-wing was annihilated. 

The Nazis were right-wing nationalists who skilfully used the odd token policy like KdF and an extensive propaganda machine to mask the fact that the German working class saw their employment rights eroded and their real wages drop for the benefit of the middle-class that largely populated the Nazi party (eg Hitler, Göbbels, Himmler), the old German industrialists such as Krupp and IG Farben, and the Juncker aristocracy. 

Their name is just another part of that propaganda - meant to boost the marketability of what was, when Hitler found it, a fringe Völkisch party populated by angry veterans and bourgeois Uni-dropouts. 

Countries less educated on the dangers of right-wing ideology such as the UK and  America are more ready to swallow that piece of propaganda, the "S" in "NSDAP". 

It's no better than calling North Korea "Democratic". 

 

Edit:

Trying to think of a more succinct way of summing it up.

If you want to know what totalitarian socialist government looks like: it's where they kill the landowners, not jump into bed with them. 

[Honey Honey]

4 hours ago, Inverted said:

Yup, were going to take our definition of socialism from... the Nazis. 

The party who got to power by liquidating anybody in their party who even flirted with actual worker-focused politics like Röhm and Strasser and whose first targets once in power were the SPD and KPD. 

And which political group did they draw their key early support in Parliament from? Oh yeah the aristocratic nationalists and Papen - who were allowed to exist relatively undisturbed throughout the Nazi regime whilst the entire German left-wing was annihilated. 

The Nazis were right-wing nationalists who skilfully used the odd token policy like KdF and an extensive propaganda machine to mask the fact that the German working class saw their employment rights eroded and their real wages drop for the benefit of the middle-class that largely populated the Nazi party (eg Hitler, Göbbels, Himmler), the old German industrialists such as Krupp and IG Farben, and the Juncker aristocracy. 

Their name is just another part of that propaganda - meant to boost the marketability of what was, when Hitler found it, a fringe Völkisch party populated by angry veterans and bourgeois Uni-dropouts. 

Countries less educated on the dangers of right-wing ideology such as the UK and  America are more ready to swallow that piece of propaganda, the "S" in "NSDAP". 

It's no better than calling North Korea "Democratic". 

 

Edit:

Trying to think of a more succinct way of summing it up.

If you want to know what totalitarian socialist government looks like: it's where they kill the landowners, not jump into bed with them. 

 

Where did I take a definition of socialism from the Nazi's? I said the name was a clue that they were left wing. If you follow the clue you find evidence of welfarism, tax, anti free market, anti-property rights, heavy government organisation of society, of production, of the economy. Facets of socialism the clue pointed towards, doesn't matter that it wasn't by the book socialism, that doesn't mean they aren't left wing policies.

The trend connection to the far right is nationalism and racial hierarchy. 

It isn't left or right that creates danger, it is primarily authoritarianism. How authoritarians interact with left or right positions is neither here nor there. Hence the meaning of my original point of bringing up the Nazi's left wing policy tendancies. Authoritarians crave force to remove their own anxieties, getting your knickers in a twist over the existence of conservative brains is a form of authoritarian anxiety itself. But what do I know, I am less educated on the dangers of right wing ideology because they only basis of my evidence is from British and American academics lol

[6666]

Not sure what benefits there are to the right wing, seems to mainly appeal to the unjustly paranoid and overly insecure when looking at anything they don't understand. I wouldn't say they shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinions but that depends on if they just have a different perspective on things and different solutions which are still within the bounds of reason or not. When it comes to a party that thinks Germany needs to change its negative feelings towards its history and a party that empowers people that want to engage in violence then that is a problem.

[Pig on the Wing]

The democratic poison that is far-right wing ideology is continuing to establish itself as a perceived 'viable' notion in the Western world.

I'm genuinely not surprised any more, the once shocking event is now so commonplace it barely registers.

Sadly, that's kind of like fundamentalist terrorism in Western population centres. Kinda like the brown people that do those attacks. Kinda like the brown people who work in the shop down the road from me...

OH GOOD GOD, I'D BETTER VOTE FOR A RIGHT-WING PARTY TO KEEP MY COUNTRY SAFE!!

There is no other reason to vote for a far right party than misplaced fear of the 'other'. 

10 hours ago, Fairy In Boots said:

Center right really your normal parties are just that far left and that deep into the EU disaster you've lost all perception of reality and all concept of national sovereignty 

Non sequitur. 

[Spike]

There is a lot of conflation as to what 'right-wing' is in this topic. Nazism for instance is an authoritarian ideology that practises state-controlled economics (an autarchy/self-suficieny and lots of government handouts as opposed to pure 'Soviet style' controlled economy), with limited democratic choice and personal freedoms. Sounds like an ideology that exists between two spectrums. A left v right dichotomy cannot exist when ideologies are broken down into 'social' and 'economic'. Rarely does an entire ideology exist within a single area of the spectrum and it is naive to believe that something so dense could easily be pidgeon-holed. An X-Y spectrum does a better job of purveying what an ideology is. I'd wager every single person on this website is 100% opposed to Nazi 'social issues' but would struggle to put a decent argument down against or for 'Nazi economics'. Ironically enough, 'Libertarianism' an ideology that I have some fondness of is usually pidgeon-holed into 'right wing'...now doesn't it sound odd having 'Nazism' and 'Libertarian' in the same part of the spectrum? Yeah, it's stupid that is why left v. right is completely useless.

I'd also wager if we used the 'classical spectrum' i.e. the economical spectrum, most of us would be right-wing as we favour capitalistic ideals that have brought us much prosperity and success. Even some of users are entrepreneurs (something I deeply admire) like our @SirBalon. I'd hazard a guess that he wouldn't have the success he does with his chippies in a Soviet (left) economy.

People need to stop viewing left v. right as moral v. immoral, they are simply tools to an end. Especially economically one can easily make points for and against topics such as private ownership v. the abolition of property.

[Spike]

34 minutes ago, 6666 said:

Not sure what benefits there are to the right wing, seems to mainly appeal to the unjustly paranoid and overly insecure when looking at anything they don't understand. I wouldn't say they shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinions but that depends on if they just have a different perspective on things and different solutions which are still within the bounds of reason or not. When it comes to a party that thinks Germany needs to change its negative feelings towards its history and a party that empowers people that want to engage in violence then that is a problem.

You're conflating 'nationalism' and 'isolationism' with 'right wing'. The former two are not exclusive to the right wing, in fact they widespread in both sides. You can never forget that the USSR was a very nationalistic far-left state. Despite being economically opposite to the USA, the USSR was nearly as adept with it's nationalism and interventionism. Evil isn't left v. right.

[Inverted]

1 hour ago, HoneyNUFC said:

 

Where did I take a definition of socialism from the Nazi's? I said the name was a clue that they were left wing. If you follow the clue you find evidence of welfarism, tax, anti free market, anti-property rights, heavy government organisation of society, of production, of the economy. Facets of socialism the clue pointed towards, doesn't matter that it wasn't by the book socialism, that doesn't mean they aren't left wing policies.

The trend connection to the far right is nationalism and racial hierarchy. 

It isn't left or right that creates danger, it is primarily authoritarianism. How authoritarians interact with left or right positions is neither here nor there. Hence the meaning of my original point of bringing up the Nazi's left wing policy tendancies. Authoritarians crave force to remove their own anxieties, getting your knickers in a twist over the existence of conservative brains is a form of authoritarian anxiety itself. But what do I know, I am less educated on the dangers of right wing ideology because they only basis of my evidence is from British and American academics lol

The fundamental distinction is that there were policies that were the Nazi's reason to exist, and there were policies that they undertook for practical reasons. 

The Nazi raison d'etre was to achieve German military hegemony over Central Europe, conquer the East, and remove the Jews as well as all other groups of social undesirables. 

Things such as resisting international markets were either inevitable consequences of diplomatic violations or necessary preparations for war - and actually a major issue was that the Nazis did not nationalise industry so intensely until the war was already well lost. The major German arms corporations proceeded in a fairly uncoordinated manner up until after Stalingrad, which saw the state take a far more active role and boost production, albeit far too late. 

The welfarism was merely a marginal extension of a tradition of state paternalism which had existed since Bismarck - hardly a left-winger. Germany had been ahead of the curve on welfare for decades before the Nazis. 

The Nazis were economically centrists, if you can even label their opportunistic approach to the economy. Everywhere else they were right-wing. They fundamentally were interested in maintaining the support of the massive industrial interests and the old Imperial landowner class, and maintained the welfare system to the degree necessary to placate the workers. 

 

[Spike]

8 hours ago, Faithcore said:

No country in the world needs a fucking right wing. Can't believe what i'm reading here. That's proper Nazi talk, congratulations.

I don't understand this statement. If we go by what right wing economics are, then you'd be opposed to free-trade, private property, upwards economic mobility and economic liberalism. 

[Honey Honey]

7 minutes ago, Inverted said:

The fundamental distinction is that there were policies that were the Nazi's reason to existence, and there were policies that they undertook for practical reasons. 

The Nazi raison d'etre was to achieve German military hegemony over Central Europe, conquer the East, and remove the Jews as well as all other groups of social undesirables. 

Things such as resisting international markets were either inevitable consequences of diplomatic violations or necessary preparations for war - and actually a major issue was that the Nazis did not nationalise industry so intensely until the war was already well lost. The major German arms corporations proceeded in a fairly uncoordinated manner up until after Stalingrad, which saw the state take a far more active role and boost production, albeit far too late. 

The welfarism was merely a marginal extension of a tradition of state paternalism which had existed since Bismarck - hardly a left-winger. Germany had been ahead of the curve on welfare for decades before the Nazis. 

The Nazis were economically centrists, if you can even label their opportunistic approach to the economy. Everywhere else they were right-wing. They fundamentally were interested in maintaining the support of the massive industrial interests and the old Imperial landowner class, and maintained the welfare system to the degree necessary to placate the workers. 

 

I don't agree that the Nazi economic approach was centrist. The precedence of nationalist goals might have sparked increased intervention but the economic instincts were fundamentally influenced by socialist ideas. Years before the war they began controlling the private industries freedom to set wages, prices, profit levels and what to produce in response to inflation (much like Venezuela's response today) I'd say that is extreme not centrist. I know some ardent socialists like to say that Venezuela isn't real socialism because they didn't kill off the rich, but this doesn't mean the government isn't implementing a form of left wing socialist influenced economics, the same applies to the Nazi's. If you called Venezuela centrist you'd be laughed at.

It isn't left or right that truly defines the Nazi's. It is authoritarianism and that can comfortably go hand in hand with socialist ideas. It's the authoritarians you need to keep an eye on, not arbitrary points along a left right spectrum.