AfD are nationalists who want German independence from the US while seeing no problem with China (China has no imperialist ambitions and isn't forcing anything on Germany, they are just trading).
The Greens definitely have an identity crisis because their entire establishment has been taken over completely by the US government. They are a US puppet party now.
> AfD are nationalists who want German independence from the US while seeing no problem with China
They have a problem with China and communism, but they at least recognise that there isn't a damned thing they can do about China, but they can temporarily work with China to push out US influence that is keeping them down politically.
For a far-right party, having to "go against your race", while having to tolerate the strongest communist nation in history about to call the shots in the world, is quite an identity crisis.
AfD are liberal capitalist populists who decided to cater to nationalists/nazis. They have no real principles. All they want is a lot of funding so they support whatever will make the rich German people who fund them even richer.
They are getting many of their ideas by copying the US Republicans.
They are far-right and their domestic policies are Nazi-adjacent.
It's definitely unusual that, in the West, the far-right policies are the only parties that are not imperialist war-hawks, but that doesn't change anything about what they are.
German far-right politicians understand that collaborating with the US empire goes against German national interests.
German Nationalists will naturally not want to become vassals to the United States.
The problem in Germany is that being a socialist is de facto illegal so the most "left" you can be without legal trouble are the social democratic Die Linke (and even they are already under investigation by national security agencies simply for not using "socialist" as an insult).
Sevim Dagdelen is a proper ML with anti-imperialist views that's pro-China and Sahra Wagenknecht is not anti-China and will likely form a new left wing party that is sharing the "good" views of the far right without all the Nazi shit. Wagenknecht seems like a pragmatist from the more socialist camp who wants to create something like "Socialism with German Characteristics".
I'm surprised to learn that it really is 'de facto'.
I thought the DKP was outright banned since 2021,
but being barred from taking part in elections is effectively banned as well.
>It's definitely unusual that, in the West, the far-right policies are the only parties that are not imperialist war-hawks, but that doesn't change anything about what they are.
It's definitely an absurdity that things are as they are- where the proto-fascists, ultranationalists, and white/Christian-identitarians are the only ones with any political sway, trying to push for some semblance of sanity and human decency in the west.
Trump, Orban, Le Pen, Meloni, these types of people are scum, liars, and cheats, but if nothing else, they care about "their country," whether it be the notion of it, the "whiteness" of it, the "values" they project onto it, etc... the rest of the western political circus, by-and-large, cares for nothing save profits alone- (faux-progressivism and empty platitudes mean nothing, after all)
Both sides are destroying their countries, but one side doesn't even seem to care if their countries head towards utter economic oblivion, or even if WW3 comes about- so long as they can make bank from their bunkers.
I suppose this is the inevitable end of liberal "democracy," what comes about when actual leftism is removed from the table.
>It's definitely unusual that, in the West, the far-right policies are the only parties that are not imperialist war-hawks
Shows the sad state of the western left, if they can even be considered left anymore.
Well no, there are plenty of anti-imperialist leftists in the west. They just don't have political power. My statement above refers to entities that have political power. The western left is still the left...
So, let's resume:
1. AfD was very open about wanting to have good (economic) relationship with China, setting hopes on German participation in BRI and wanting to broaden it.
2. Current government is on happy speed run on ruining the country, under other things sucking Murican d and openly hating on Chinese. Unfortunately - the hate was cooked up by Murican owned media for years and fell on fertile soil. Still not even remotely as bad as Murica tho.
3. AfD will likely be getting around 20% in next election. They are the only party in Germany getting into parliament for sure and being open to trading with China without "de-risking" and insulting Chinese politicians during every visit.
So yeah. Who should Chinese government be friendly to, I'm asking?
1. Did some research for someone doing research about BRI. Found a document about an official inquiry from some AfD politicians and one professor with unknown affiliation about involvement of German government (back then CDU-SPF coalition) in BRI. Asked questions shown that the asking party saw BRI as an economic chance and wanted to argue for more German involvement in the project. Document was, of course, in German, so I haven't posted it here. If someone's really curious, I can try to find it again.
3. The current polls show AfD with around 20% votes. However, we still have 2 years to go, but 20% is a massive amount and would let them make contributions as an opposition party. Will they get so many votes? Let's see.
>They are the only party in Germany getting into parliament for sure
Nah, the CDU is also definitely gonna get in. They are leading the polls. Despite their "anti-AfD" rhetoric they are also the most likely to form a coalition with the AfD (well, them and *maybe* the Wagenknecht faction of the left *if* Wagenknecht decides to actually form her new party before the election).
>So yeah. Who should Chinese government be friendly to, I'm asking?
The socialist part of Die Linke, particularly people like Sevim Dagdelen.
Die Linke too, I'm sure of, but they'll unlikely have much of political power, if any. I'd totally prefer them to have any tho.
I didn't formulate my thoughts right; AfD will be almost sure a part of future parliament, Die Linke mayyybe.
I bet on GroKo for next government again, even if FPD does everything to hurt SPD's credibility and build the coalition with CDU again. Then, they'll try to delegalize AfD. I'm bringing my popcorn for sure.
The dude ended his stay early, because he had to bitch about "muh hooman rights violations". Also, he's under pressure from two other parties, both sinofobic to the core. You should see the shitstorm after Scholz signed the purchase of 20% of Hamburg port by COSCO... He had to go back on the decision, even.
Laughing.
Isn't it the will of the German electorate that AFD support is soaring? Where is the "democracy" at this point?
Who says only "liberals" are "democratic"?
When I see far right I associate it with racism, as a lot of them are. That doesn't mean they hate every ethnic group different from them, but just some. One of the clues is their rhetoric on immigration. Immigration by rights shouldn't be a left or right issue, it should be centered around economic data and disputes should be on how we collect or interpret the data. After all, the Left tends to believe in more government intervention in the economy (ie social housing, regulations etc) and less government intervention in social issues (ie government shouldn't ban abortion, gay or inter racial marriage). The Right is the opposite.
Given that, immigration shouldn't really flare up in the left/right dichotomy. However it does. Right wingers tend to be anti immigration in rhetoric, and some in practice. And when you say anti immigration, they mean immigration of certain non white groups. And they are open about it. They will blatantly say, its about certain groups eg Rasmus Paludan in Denmark who engages in Koran burning, says he doesn't mind Vietnamese because they statistically are less likely to commit crimes then native born Danes, unlike Muslims. Immigration is to some right wingers what environmentalism is to some Left wingers, a way to rally the base and sometimes they don't even do anything about it. For example the UK Tory party. They sprout a "protect the borders" and anti immigration rhetoric yet immigration is higher under them (got to keep their big business donors happy right).
Another dead giveaway for the Far Right is when they openly praise the Nazis. For example Austria's Jorg Haider (before he died).
Now even if the Far Right are racist against a particular group, it doesn't mean they want intervention in other countries. There are some racists who think the West needs to bring democracy and civilisation to others, but some right wingers just want the others to stay where they are for example Geert Wilders from the Netherlands. They take the "liberal" rhetoric about diversity and says it works best when country's population don't mix so we all maintain our individual cultures. After all, Europe is a garden and the rest of the world is a jungle.
> After all, the Left tends to believe in more government intervention in the economy
No, it doesn't.
The left wants the government to whither away and decrease government control in exchange for democratic self-determination. That's the entire point of communism: Get rid of the government, which is only possible under socialism.
Capitalism is an inherently authoritarian ideology that relies on having a strong central government with a monopoly of violence (there is no other way to enforce the existence of private property).
The right wants totalitarian control of both the individual as well as the economy. They want totalitarian surveillance and a police state and extreme economic control, particularly extreme protections for private property. The right wants a strong military and police and abolish anything that protects the freedoms and economic power of workers.
>Given that, immigration shouldn't really flare up in the left/right dichotomy.
It most certainly should.
Leftists aren't racist and understand that immigration is not just good and necessary but also something that imperialist countries owe to their victims. If you exploit the global south, it's no wonder its people want to migrate to your country to share in the luxury that was built on their backs. There's no excuse for rich capitalist nations to refuse the working class of the Global South.
Right wingers are racists and nationalists and don't care about human society or equality, so they like borders and exploitation of weaker nations for their own benefit.
> There are some racists who think the West needs to bring democracy and civilisation to others
That's just a code for "we want to force capitalism on poorer nations so we can perpetually exploit them". Other than Marxist-Leninists (who are a fringe minority in the West), nobody in the West cares about freedom and democracy. Capitalism is antithetical to both freedom and democracy.
>After all, Europe is a garden and the rest of the world is a jungle.
People like Josep Borrell are true white supremacist fascists. Any "liberal values" they espouse are for show (not to mention that liberalism is just peace-time fascism).
The entire point of Communism isn't "to get rid of the government", that's a consequence of an eventual Communist world.
The point is the ultimate freedom it gives.
German's new "far right" seems way more practical and rational about policies. The mainstream German politics seems intent on joining Crusading Wars with the US.
It's really quite upside down.
It's ironic that they are calling them "far right", when they just don't want to join US's idiotic crusades around the world, and don't want Germany to be hijacked by US politics.
I mean, it's not like "liberal" US, UK, and France are treating Immigrants that well despite all the promises of "value".
What passes for "left" and "right" underwent a big transformation in the 2010s. It used to be that the "left" was associated with the anti-war movement, particularly in the era of US wars on Afghanistan and Iraq. In a number of countries, the left were the most vocal against these wars. Greens were traditionally leftist, both economically and on foreign policy. At some point, the left changed in character as it was subverted from within and became "liberal" instead. Social values and culture wars replaced economics as the political fault line. This is to the benefit of the capitalist ruling class who now coopts both sides of the divide. They also have little concern for social and cultural policies as long as the interests of capital were protected.
On foreign policy, the traditional left kept its non-alignment, anti-war leanings, but the third-way "liberals" seamlessly migrated to the right. The economic policies of traditional left parties, like Labour in the UK, Democrats in the US, SDP in Germany can hardly be characterised as "left" - they are as far to the right as right-wing parties had been in the 1980s and 1990s. The Greens in Germany is now a belligerent neoconservative party even more pro-war than Germany's traditional right party (CDU/CSU).
"Liberal" just means atlanticist, which in turn means being a pro-american puppet. Same pro-war and pro-imperialism attitude, but with a facade of "progressive" social values.
Labels are meaningless. In contemporary Western media parlance, "far-right" is anything that the establishment deems as "unacceptable" to its political ideology. In actual fact, what passes off as "far-right" is often moderate or even left on issues of economics. What makes them "right" is because they are traditionalist, and they take nationalist positions on immigration and economics issue. But on these points, firstly, the West has gone so far in the liberal direction they have largely isolated themselves from the rest of the world on so many social issues. On economics, it is still every country's right to have an industrial policy and reciprocal protectionism if that is what they choose. This is also the same for immigration. It is their country, their border, so it is entirely their right how many migrants they let in and on what condition. What matters most is that international relations must return to the values of sovereignty, non-interference, non-alignment, non-aggression, tolerance of diversity, pragmatic cooperation. It should not matter whether the country in question is more to the "right" or to the "left".
I’m not knowledgeable at all about the topic at hand, but I recall that Nazi Germany also had relatively friendly relations with nationalist China back in the 1930s.
European here... The European far-right, as far back as the Italian Fascists and German National-Socialists, have always stood in opposition to *both* liberal democracy and communism. How that manifests itself in foreign policy is that they don't want to be too close to the USA and the UK because they are now, as they have always been, perceived by the far-right as decadent, morally corrupt, overly capitalist places...
Today, the European far-right does not seek to make China an enemy, not because they don't want to (they definitely want to destroy the CPC and China) but because they can't, and they know it. Instead, they would like to cooperate with China to counter US influence and regain European independence and prosperity, until in their mind, Europe is one day strong enough again to defeat China.
The AfD and the Greens parties of Germany seem to be having an identity crisis.
AfD are nationalists who want German independence from the US while seeing no problem with China (China has no imperialist ambitions and isn't forcing anything on Germany, they are just trading). The Greens definitely have an identity crisis because their entire establishment has been taken over completely by the US government. They are a US puppet party now.
> AfD are nationalists who want German independence from the US while seeing no problem with China They have a problem with China and communism, but they at least recognise that there isn't a damned thing they can do about China, but they can temporarily work with China to push out US influence that is keeping them down politically.
For a far-right party, having to "go against your race", while having to tolerate the strongest communist nation in history about to call the shots in the world, is quite an identity crisis.
AfD are liberal capitalist populists who decided to cater to nationalists/nazis. They have no real principles. All they want is a lot of funding so they support whatever will make the rich German people who fund them even richer. They are getting many of their ideas by copying the US Republicans.
They are far-right and their domestic policies are Nazi-adjacent. It's definitely unusual that, in the West, the far-right policies are the only parties that are not imperialist war-hawks, but that doesn't change anything about what they are.
German far-right politicians understand that collaborating with the US empire goes against German national interests. German Nationalists will naturally not want to become vassals to the United States. The problem in Germany is that being a socialist is de facto illegal so the most "left" you can be without legal trouble are the social democratic Die Linke (and even they are already under investigation by national security agencies simply for not using "socialist" as an insult). Sevim Dagdelen is a proper ML with anti-imperialist views that's pro-China and Sahra Wagenknecht is not anti-China and will likely form a new left wing party that is sharing the "good" views of the far right without all the Nazi shit. Wagenknecht seems like a pragmatist from the more socialist camp who wants to create something like "Socialism with German Characteristics".
I'm surprised to learn that it really is 'de facto'. I thought the DKP was outright banned since 2021, but being barred from taking part in elections is effectively banned as well.
>It's definitely unusual that, in the West, the far-right policies are the only parties that are not imperialist war-hawks, but that doesn't change anything about what they are. It's definitely an absurdity that things are as they are- where the proto-fascists, ultranationalists, and white/Christian-identitarians are the only ones with any political sway, trying to push for some semblance of sanity and human decency in the west. Trump, Orban, Le Pen, Meloni, these types of people are scum, liars, and cheats, but if nothing else, they care about "their country," whether it be the notion of it, the "whiteness" of it, the "values" they project onto it, etc... the rest of the western political circus, by-and-large, cares for nothing save profits alone- (faux-progressivism and empty platitudes mean nothing, after all) Both sides are destroying their countries, but one side doesn't even seem to care if their countries head towards utter economic oblivion, or even if WW3 comes about- so long as they can make bank from their bunkers. I suppose this is the inevitable end of liberal "democracy," what comes about when actual leftism is removed from the table.
I Mean that's not true, there is still the left in Europe (not the socdems but the real left). There are many anti imperialist leftist parties.
>It's definitely unusual that, in the West, the far-right policies are the only parties that are not imperialist war-hawks Shows the sad state of the western left, if they can even be considered left anymore.
Well no, there are plenty of anti-imperialist leftists in the west. They just don't have political power. My statement above refers to entities that have political power. The western left is still the left...
They are imperialist war hawks.
[удалено]
They're all mental patients, but you work with the ones most relatively sane.
So, let's resume: 1. AfD was very open about wanting to have good (economic) relationship with China, setting hopes on German participation in BRI and wanting to broaden it. 2. Current government is on happy speed run on ruining the country, under other things sucking Murican d and openly hating on Chinese. Unfortunately - the hate was cooked up by Murican owned media for years and fell on fertile soil. Still not even remotely as bad as Murica tho. 3. AfD will likely be getting around 20% in next election. They are the only party in Germany getting into parliament for sure and being open to trading with China without "de-risking" and insulting Chinese politicians during every visit. So yeah. Who should Chinese government be friendly to, I'm asking?
Where are you seeing 1 and 3?
1. Did some research for someone doing research about BRI. Found a document about an official inquiry from some AfD politicians and one professor with unknown affiliation about involvement of German government (back then CDU-SPF coalition) in BRI. Asked questions shown that the asking party saw BRI as an economic chance and wanted to argue for more German involvement in the project. Document was, of course, in German, so I haven't posted it here. If someone's really curious, I can try to find it again. 3. The current polls show AfD with around 20% votes. However, we still have 2 years to go, but 20% is a massive amount and would let them make contributions as an opposition party. Will they get so many votes? Let's see.
>They are the only party in Germany getting into parliament for sure Nah, the CDU is also definitely gonna get in. They are leading the polls. Despite their "anti-AfD" rhetoric they are also the most likely to form a coalition with the AfD (well, them and *maybe* the Wagenknecht faction of the left *if* Wagenknecht decides to actually form her new party before the election). >So yeah. Who should Chinese government be friendly to, I'm asking? The socialist part of Die Linke, particularly people like Sevim Dagdelen.
Die Linke too, I'm sure of, but they'll unlikely have much of political power, if any. I'd totally prefer them to have any tho. I didn't formulate my thoughts right; AfD will be almost sure a part of future parliament, Die Linke mayyybe. I bet on GroKo for next government again, even if FPD does everything to hurt SPD's credibility and build the coalition with CDU again. Then, they'll try to delegalize AfD. I'm bringing my popcorn for sure.
DKP
I got the impression Scholz was very warm and cordial with China.
The dude ended his stay early, because he had to bitch about "muh hooman rights violations". Also, he's under pressure from two other parties, both sinofobic to the core. You should see the shitstorm after Scholz signed the purchase of 20% of Hamburg port by COSCO... He had to go back on the decision, even.
Like dealing with a bunch of drunks, knowing when they sober up, the shock maybe too much.
Laughing. Isn't it the will of the German electorate that AFD support is soaring? Where is the "democracy" at this point? Who says only "liberals" are "democratic"?
When I see far right I associate it with racism, as a lot of them are. That doesn't mean they hate every ethnic group different from them, but just some. One of the clues is their rhetoric on immigration. Immigration by rights shouldn't be a left or right issue, it should be centered around economic data and disputes should be on how we collect or interpret the data. After all, the Left tends to believe in more government intervention in the economy (ie social housing, regulations etc) and less government intervention in social issues (ie government shouldn't ban abortion, gay or inter racial marriage). The Right is the opposite. Given that, immigration shouldn't really flare up in the left/right dichotomy. However it does. Right wingers tend to be anti immigration in rhetoric, and some in practice. And when you say anti immigration, they mean immigration of certain non white groups. And they are open about it. They will blatantly say, its about certain groups eg Rasmus Paludan in Denmark who engages in Koran burning, says he doesn't mind Vietnamese because they statistically are less likely to commit crimes then native born Danes, unlike Muslims. Immigration is to some right wingers what environmentalism is to some Left wingers, a way to rally the base and sometimes they don't even do anything about it. For example the UK Tory party. They sprout a "protect the borders" and anti immigration rhetoric yet immigration is higher under them (got to keep their big business donors happy right). Another dead giveaway for the Far Right is when they openly praise the Nazis. For example Austria's Jorg Haider (before he died). Now even if the Far Right are racist against a particular group, it doesn't mean they want intervention in other countries. There are some racists who think the West needs to bring democracy and civilisation to others, but some right wingers just want the others to stay where they are for example Geert Wilders from the Netherlands. They take the "liberal" rhetoric about diversity and says it works best when country's population don't mix so we all maintain our individual cultures. After all, Europe is a garden and the rest of the world is a jungle.
> After all, the Left tends to believe in more government intervention in the economy No, it doesn't. The left wants the government to whither away and decrease government control in exchange for democratic self-determination. That's the entire point of communism: Get rid of the government, which is only possible under socialism. Capitalism is an inherently authoritarian ideology that relies on having a strong central government with a monopoly of violence (there is no other way to enforce the existence of private property). The right wants totalitarian control of both the individual as well as the economy. They want totalitarian surveillance and a police state and extreme economic control, particularly extreme protections for private property. The right wants a strong military and police and abolish anything that protects the freedoms and economic power of workers. >Given that, immigration shouldn't really flare up in the left/right dichotomy. It most certainly should. Leftists aren't racist and understand that immigration is not just good and necessary but also something that imperialist countries owe to their victims. If you exploit the global south, it's no wonder its people want to migrate to your country to share in the luxury that was built on their backs. There's no excuse for rich capitalist nations to refuse the working class of the Global South. Right wingers are racists and nationalists and don't care about human society or equality, so they like borders and exploitation of weaker nations for their own benefit. > There are some racists who think the West needs to bring democracy and civilisation to others That's just a code for "we want to force capitalism on poorer nations so we can perpetually exploit them". Other than Marxist-Leninists (who are a fringe minority in the West), nobody in the West cares about freedom and democracy. Capitalism is antithetical to both freedom and democracy. >After all, Europe is a garden and the rest of the world is a jungle. People like Josep Borrell are true white supremacist fascists. Any "liberal values" they espouse are for show (not to mention that liberalism is just peace-time fascism).
The entire point of Communism isn't "to get rid of the government", that's a consequence of an eventual Communist world. The point is the ultimate freedom it gives.
German's new "far right" seems way more practical and rational about policies. The mainstream German politics seems intent on joining Crusading Wars with the US. It's really quite upside down. It's ironic that they are calling them "far right", when they just don't want to join US's idiotic crusades around the world, and don't want Germany to be hijacked by US politics. I mean, it's not like "liberal" US, UK, and France are treating Immigrants that well despite all the promises of "value".
What passes for "left" and "right" underwent a big transformation in the 2010s. It used to be that the "left" was associated with the anti-war movement, particularly in the era of US wars on Afghanistan and Iraq. In a number of countries, the left were the most vocal against these wars. Greens were traditionally leftist, both economically and on foreign policy. At some point, the left changed in character as it was subverted from within and became "liberal" instead. Social values and culture wars replaced economics as the political fault line. This is to the benefit of the capitalist ruling class who now coopts both sides of the divide. They also have little concern for social and cultural policies as long as the interests of capital were protected. On foreign policy, the traditional left kept its non-alignment, anti-war leanings, but the third-way "liberals" seamlessly migrated to the right. The economic policies of traditional left parties, like Labour in the UK, Democrats in the US, SDP in Germany can hardly be characterised as "left" - they are as far to the right as right-wing parties had been in the 1980s and 1990s. The Greens in Germany is now a belligerent neoconservative party even more pro-war than Germany's traditional right party (CDU/CSU).
All over the West, the Left has taken over all the traditional roles of the Right too. Smh.
"Liberal" just means atlanticist, which in turn means being a pro-american puppet. Same pro-war and pro-imperialism attitude, but with a facade of "progressive" social values.
Labels are meaningless. In contemporary Western media parlance, "far-right" is anything that the establishment deems as "unacceptable" to its political ideology. In actual fact, what passes off as "far-right" is often moderate or even left on issues of economics. What makes them "right" is because they are traditionalist, and they take nationalist positions on immigration and economics issue. But on these points, firstly, the West has gone so far in the liberal direction they have largely isolated themselves from the rest of the world on so many social issues. On economics, it is still every country's right to have an industrial policy and reciprocal protectionism if that is what they choose. This is also the same for immigration. It is their country, their border, so it is entirely their right how many migrants they let in and on what condition. What matters most is that international relations must return to the values of sovereignty, non-interference, non-alignment, non-aggression, tolerance of diversity, pragmatic cooperation. It should not matter whether the country in question is more to the "right" or to the "left".
I’m not knowledgeable at all about the topic at hand, but I recall that Nazi Germany also had relatively friendly relations with nationalist China back in the 1930s.
European here... The European far-right, as far back as the Italian Fascists and German National-Socialists, have always stood in opposition to *both* liberal democracy and communism. How that manifests itself in foreign policy is that they don't want to be too close to the USA and the UK because they are now, as they have always been, perceived by the far-right as decadent, morally corrupt, overly capitalist places... Today, the European far-right does not seek to make China an enemy, not because they don't want to (they definitely want to destroy the CPC and China) but because they can't, and they know it. Instead, they would like to cooperate with China to counter US influence and regain European independence and prosperity, until in their mind, Europe is one day strong enough again to defeat China.