All this and no mention of the disastrous impact of US Imperialism's war on Russia on the German nation?
All those parties that got killed in the polls have been the most rabid supporters of the neo Nazi Ukrainian regime. This no limits support for Ukraine has cut off cheaper Russian gas (per force after the US blew up Germany's pipeline!) and generally ruined the previous economic strength of Europe and especially Germany.
You seem interested in the AFDs support for Nazism, but I'd say they are winning precisely because they did not support the actual neo Nazis in Ukraine.
You're pretty clever. How could you miss this critical element of the election outcome?
Tooze is a very careful academic observer, and I don't blame him. In the circles he has to remain professionally an opinion such as you have expressed is tantamount to "wrongthink" and a one-way ticket to professional oblivion.
This doesn't make you incorrect, mind you, simply that expecting Tooze to articulate it himself right now is probably asking too much.
This is a really great analysis - thanks. I am fascinated by this specific point: “But what is surprising is that the discourse of “social distress”, does not translate into a platform that supports greater state spending, or welfare.”
To me it feels people don’t believe in these solutions any more. This kind of change has had a huge impact in the past but now people feel politicians on the left over promise and under deliver. People have voted left for many years and feel that nothing much has changed.
Plus welfare and spending generate prosperity which leads people away from issues like immigration. Those who hold those issues as their main concerns don’t necessarily see that connection. Its easier to say “fix the problem” than “fix the concern.”
This translates well to the Brexit vote. More subtly to the SNP vote - they have convinced people that handing this over to a new set of institutions will solve the problems. That belief may now be fading as well. A challenge for Labour as well as the SNP.
A very interesting book has just come out in France that diagnoses these rightward political shifts. Producteurs et Parasites by Michel Feher (https://www.editionsladecouverte.fr/producteurs_et_parasites-9782348084881) is mainly about the Rassemblement National, and I'd imagine that it could apply very easily to the AFD. The basic idea is that the RN's ideological essence is a "producerism" that pits workers who "deserve" to earn the fruit of their labor against the parasites who steal it from them, parasites from above (e.g. transnational financiers) as well as those from below like immigrants and other racialised groups who supposedly profit from the hard work of the deserving producers. Just as you mention with the AFD, the RN discourse wants to "rendre aux Français leur argent" (give the French their money) even though it is simultaneously hostile to redistributive taxation by the state. I'm curious if this imaginary of the RN is also used by the AFD, and if so, does its discourse have any particularly "German" characteristics that distinguish it from the French version.
Wow, the continuing collapse of the SPD over the last few decades is quite astounding. For decades, they were the most influential Social Democratic party in the world. Now they struggle to get 15% of the vote.
For a while, it looked like the Greens would surpass them as the dominant party on the Left, but now their support seems to have topped out as well.
I would also be interested in the wording of the responses that are defined as “racist, chauvinist, authoritarian and pro-Nazi views” in the Infratest Dimap survey.
"I would also be interested in the wording of the responses that are defined as “racist, chauvinist, authoritarian and pro-Nazi views” in the Infratest Dimap survey."
Me too. I have been commuting back and forth to Germany from US since 2006 (about half the year in each) and living here since 2020. Extremely sensitive in principle to what is called pro-Nazi, and unhappy with how the term is used here. Most of all, I fail to experience anti-Semitism as its defining feature. It seems to function more as a term for authoritarianism, with prejudice appearing in the form of anti-immigrant or anti-multi-cultural convictions or feelings.
The footnote there is very helpful in providing specifics for Adam's observation, but still leaves a lot to be looked into more carefully, including method, and what one takes away from it. It seems likely, maybe very likely, that anti-Semitism is way under the 27% of AfD voters identified as Extreme Right. I do not diminish the significance of ANY anti-Semitism, but as an academic, words are my thing, and I do not want a slide from being called Authoritiarian to being called pro-Nazi any more than I want to see anti-Zionism being called anti-Semitism.
Insightful analysis as always. One also has to look at other parts of Europe when considering the second rate citizenship feeling that hasn't disappeared after the 1989 but increased overall. Especially when it's a material feeling of seeing 2nd rate consumer products sold in the east just to take one example the Mega chain of shops in Romania (part of a Benelux group Ahold Delhaize). There's always a felt difference of product quality from what is sold in Belgium as compared to Romania, while the prices are similar. A bit like when you have a Lidl in or Aldi in poor hood in Berlin as supposed to other more prosperous parts. Might seem anecdotal evidence but this simple fact points out other imbalances.
Manuela Boatca, a sociologist ay Albert-Ludwig looked into larger correlations btw Eastern Europe and Latin America as Laboratories of Modernity in her recent book - applying a dependency theory/w system theory to clarify why the semi periphery status of the former East has stuck till now. She even makes a taxonomy of multiple and unequal Europes that get ranked for the benefit of a 'unique', superior and heroic Western Europe. According to this slanted classification there's a founding but decadent Europe (Portugal, Spain), a central Europe getting the heroic percs (France England Germany?) and a faulty Balkan périphéric (and supposedly mimetic) one. This heuristic enables her to look beyond the blindness of the neo-colonial participation of this region and it's reinsertion in the world system according to a certain pecking order. Second rate here, but maybe first rate in other less fortunate places...
There are great similarities between the ideology of the German and Brazilian far-right. Except for what concerns anti-Semitism and hatred of immigrants. It seems that this movement against gender equality and xenophobic nationalism and the conservative tradition of family, country and god is international and in line with an individualism exacerbated by neoliberalism and changes in employment that cause enormous insecurity and a feeling of resentment against liberal institutions, not to be confused with democratic institutions that practically do not exist. Financialization as the highest stage of the highest stage of capitalism must be confronted to avoid barbarism.
These people are literally voting against immigration. It’s straight out of the Nazi playbook. First it’s deporting refugees, and next thing you know, I won’t be able to walk down the street in my kink costume.
Well, maybe we should look at Ukraine guys? There are open Nazis in high government and military positions there. Yet, the west gives them endless amounts of money and the most deadly weapons. If you care about Nazis, let's start where the problem is most acute.
Here we go again… let me guess, saying hurty things is just free speech. Uhm… how about no. You can say whatever you want but you can’t judge other people.
Not terribly concerned about "hurty things" one way or the other but the idea that democracy is possible when "these people" (however defined) aren't "allowed to have a voice" is, well, risible.
But that’s the thing. The only way to preserve our democracy is to disallow wrong opinions also re-educate the people saying it. That’s the price you have to pay for living in a democracy.
That the discourse of “social distress” does not translate into a platform that supports greater state spending shows the success of mafia tactics employed by neoliberals. They have successfully convinced the formerly left parties that the time is never right to dial back the tax cuts and their voters that the left parties are no different than the neolibs. It is also an essential tactic in mafia's PR to convince the population that their enemies are no better than themselves; this is one of the central findings in Saviano's works.
very interesting, thanks! it would be interesting to add data on: a) position ov afd's and bsw's voters and general average towards russian agression in ukraine, b) level of social distress felt by respective voters...
Germans didn’t suddenly become more of “Nazis” than they already were – and there’s no difference to all those (first-world-) chauvinists we encounter all over the place in this (‹western›) world.
The AfD didn’t get “strong” – rather, the established parties abandoned the majority of their citizens even more, ensuring the wealthiest thrive. This isn’t just an assertion or ‹feeling›; it’s a statistical fact: income and wealth disparity, crumbling infrastructure, schools, and social safety nets.
The old parties don’t talk about their actions which led to these results. On the contrary, it is part of their job description to keep the populace in the dark about whom they really serve. The («leading») media (naturally in the hands of the wealthy) are eager and crucial supporters in this endeavor.
Without understanding what’s happening and what is being done to them, a large part of the populace turns to the closest, only presented, and simplistic explanations, resulting in scapegoating immigrants, the poor, and «mysterious foreign evil-doers». The wealthy don’t mind this distraction; they welcome it and let the populace believe it – and by hearing it repeatedly, they even believe it themselves.
If the established parties wanted to get rid of the AfD and chauvinistic/racist thinking, they’d have to admit their own faults and make clear for whom they have worked so adamantly over the years. But hey, who would want to do something like this? Who would want to go to «such extremes» as long as the profits still pour into one’s own coffers?
And particularly since everyone knows: the AfD stays nicely on course, i.e., hardcore neoliberal, and therefore won’t threaten the wealthy in any way and won’t put the “really nasty” ideas into the heads of the masses.
And why should young people "trust" institutions that insist upon immiserating more and more of them? Jonathan Hopkin's "Anti-System Politics: The Crisis of Market Liberalism in Rich Democracies" explains the meltdown of the old centrist parties, and it's rooted mostly in their clinging to a neoliberal consensus which has comprehensively failed. As this failure becomes increasingly impossible to hide, the electorate is abandoning the reviled "uniparty" in every country where what I call the "radical centrists" have dominated since the Clinton/Blair era.
While the unrest in Germany is most obvious in the East (well, duh, it's the poorer region) don't think for a moment that it isn't coming soon to the West ...
All this and no mention of the disastrous impact of US Imperialism's war on Russia on the German nation?
All those parties that got killed in the polls have been the most rabid supporters of the neo Nazi Ukrainian regime. This no limits support for Ukraine has cut off cheaper Russian gas (per force after the US blew up Germany's pipeline!) and generally ruined the previous economic strength of Europe and especially Germany.
You seem interested in the AFDs support for Nazism, but I'd say they are winning precisely because they did not support the actual neo Nazis in Ukraine.
You're pretty clever. How could you miss this critical element of the election outcome?
How much did Putin pay you?
Tooze is a very careful academic observer, and I don't blame him. In the circles he has to remain professionally an opinion such as you have expressed is tantamount to "wrongthink" and a one-way ticket to professional oblivion.
This doesn't make you incorrect, mind you, simply that expecting Tooze to articulate it himself right now is probably asking too much.
Just like asking German academics to speak up in the 1930s was too much ;)
This is a really great analysis - thanks. I am fascinated by this specific point: “But what is surprising is that the discourse of “social distress”, does not translate into a platform that supports greater state spending, or welfare.”
To me it feels people don’t believe in these solutions any more. This kind of change has had a huge impact in the past but now people feel politicians on the left over promise and under deliver. People have voted left for many years and feel that nothing much has changed.
Plus welfare and spending generate prosperity which leads people away from issues like immigration. Those who hold those issues as their main concerns don’t necessarily see that connection. Its easier to say “fix the problem” than “fix the concern.”
This translates well to the Brexit vote. More subtly to the SNP vote - they have convinced people that handing this over to a new set of institutions will solve the problems. That belief may now be fading as well. A challenge for Labour as well as the SNP.
A very interesting book has just come out in France that diagnoses these rightward political shifts. Producteurs et Parasites by Michel Feher (https://www.editionsladecouverte.fr/producteurs_et_parasites-9782348084881) is mainly about the Rassemblement National, and I'd imagine that it could apply very easily to the AFD. The basic idea is that the RN's ideological essence is a "producerism" that pits workers who "deserve" to earn the fruit of their labor against the parasites who steal it from them, parasites from above (e.g. transnational financiers) as well as those from below like immigrants and other racialised groups who supposedly profit from the hard work of the deserving producers. Just as you mention with the AFD, the RN discourse wants to "rendre aux Français leur argent" (give the French their money) even though it is simultaneously hostile to redistributive taxation by the state. I'm curious if this imaginary of the RN is also used by the AFD, and if so, does its discourse have any particularly "German" characteristics that distinguish it from the French version.
Wow, the continuing collapse of the SPD over the last few decades is quite astounding. For decades, they were the most influential Social Democratic party in the world. Now they struggle to get 15% of the vote.
For a while, it looked like the Greens would surpass them as the dominant party on the Left, but now their support seems to have topped out as well.
I would also be interested in the wording of the responses that are defined as “racist, chauvinist, authoritarian and pro-Nazi views” in the Infratest Dimap survey.
"I would also be interested in the wording of the responses that are defined as “racist, chauvinist, authoritarian and pro-Nazi views” in the Infratest Dimap survey."
Me too. I have been commuting back and forth to Germany from US since 2006 (about half the year in each) and living here since 2020. Extremely sensitive in principle to what is called pro-Nazi, and unhappy with how the term is used here. Most of all, I fail to experience anti-Semitism as its defining feature. It seems to function more as a term for authoritarianism, with prejudice appearing in the form of anti-immigrant or anti-multi-cultural convictions or feelings.
So I went to Adam's link for this item at https://www.marktforschung.de/marktforschung/a/afd-waehler-herkunft-profil-und-motivation/.
The clip for Adam's comment here is https://www.marktforschung.de/fileadmin/_processed_/d/4/csm_Auspraegung_f7fb594945.jpg.
The footnote there is very helpful in providing specifics for Adam's observation, but still leaves a lot to be looked into more carefully, including method, and what one takes away from it. It seems likely, maybe very likely, that anti-Semitism is way under the 27% of AfD voters identified as Extreme Right. I do not diminish the significance of ANY anti-Semitism, but as an academic, words are my thing, and I do not want a slide from being called Authoritiarian to being called pro-Nazi any more than I want to see anti-Zionism being called anti-Semitism.
At least socially -going to the Dresden Christmas market- you couldn’t meet a nicer group of people.
Insightful analysis as always. One also has to look at other parts of Europe when considering the second rate citizenship feeling that hasn't disappeared after the 1989 but increased overall. Especially when it's a material feeling of seeing 2nd rate consumer products sold in the east just to take one example the Mega chain of shops in Romania (part of a Benelux group Ahold Delhaize). There's always a felt difference of product quality from what is sold in Belgium as compared to Romania, while the prices are similar. A bit like when you have a Lidl in or Aldi in poor hood in Berlin as supposed to other more prosperous parts. Might seem anecdotal evidence but this simple fact points out other imbalances.
Manuela Boatca, a sociologist ay Albert-Ludwig looked into larger correlations btw Eastern Europe and Latin America as Laboratories of Modernity in her recent book - applying a dependency theory/w system theory to clarify why the semi periphery status of the former East has stuck till now. She even makes a taxonomy of multiple and unequal Europes that get ranked for the benefit of a 'unique', superior and heroic Western Europe. According to this slanted classification there's a founding but decadent Europe (Portugal, Spain), a central Europe getting the heroic percs (France England Germany?) and a faulty Balkan périphéric (and supposedly mimetic) one. This heuristic enables her to look beyond the blindness of the neo-colonial participation of this region and it's reinsertion in the world system according to a certain pecking order. Second rate here, but maybe first rate in other less fortunate places...
There are great similarities between the ideology of the German and Brazilian far-right. Except for what concerns anti-Semitism and hatred of immigrants. It seems that this movement against gender equality and xenophobic nationalism and the conservative tradition of family, country and god is international and in line with an individualism exacerbated by neoliberalism and changes in employment that cause enormous insecurity and a feeling of resentment against liberal institutions, not to be confused with democratic institutions that practically do not exist. Financialization as the highest stage of the highest stage of capitalism must be confronted to avoid barbarism.
They were and have always been nazis
Nazi's were 70 years ago! It's now the 21st century.
These people are literally voting against immigration. It’s straight out of the Nazi playbook. First it’s deporting refugees, and next thing you know, I won’t be able to walk down the street in my kink costume.
There are still plenty of nazis in Germany
Well, maybe we should look at Ukraine guys? There are open Nazis in high government and military positions there. Yet, the west gives them endless amounts of money and the most deadly weapons. If you care about Nazis, let's start where the problem is most acute.
Absolutely i despise ukraine and don't support the NATO proxy war. Our tax dollars should help us not nazis
Evidence?
Have you not seen how germany has responded to anti israel protests, by rounding up jews and arabs and allies alike
That does not tell me how many Nazis are in Germany today. I mean opinion polls.
They won't admit it but they hold nazi views deep in their hearts
It’s also super dangerous for our democracy that these people are even allowed to have a voice
Think about the unintended hilarity of your statement for a moment ...
Here we go again… let me guess, saying hurty things is just free speech. Uhm… how about no. You can say whatever you want but you can’t judge other people.
Not terribly concerned about "hurty things" one way or the other but the idea that democracy is possible when "these people" (however defined) aren't "allowed to have a voice" is, well, risible.
But that’s the thing. The only way to preserve our democracy is to disallow wrong opinions also re-educate the people saying it. That’s the price you have to pay for living in a democracy.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree -- what you're describing sounds more like oligarchy than democracy to me.
That the discourse of “social distress” does not translate into a platform that supports greater state spending shows the success of mafia tactics employed by neoliberals. They have successfully convinced the formerly left parties that the time is never right to dial back the tax cuts and their voters that the left parties are no different than the neolibs. It is also an essential tactic in mafia's PR to convince the population that their enemies are no better than themselves; this is one of the central findings in Saviano's works.
very interesting, thanks! it would be interesting to add data on: a) position ov afd's and bsw's voters and general average towards russian agression in ukraine, b) level of social distress felt by respective voters...
Germans didn’t suddenly become more of “Nazis” than they already were – and there’s no difference to all those (first-world-) chauvinists we encounter all over the place in this (‹western›) world.
The AfD didn’t get “strong” – rather, the established parties abandoned the majority of their citizens even more, ensuring the wealthiest thrive. This isn’t just an assertion or ‹feeling›; it’s a statistical fact: income and wealth disparity, crumbling infrastructure, schools, and social safety nets.
The old parties don’t talk about their actions which led to these results. On the contrary, it is part of their job description to keep the populace in the dark about whom they really serve. The («leading») media (naturally in the hands of the wealthy) are eager and crucial supporters in this endeavor.
Without understanding what’s happening and what is being done to them, a large part of the populace turns to the closest, only presented, and simplistic explanations, resulting in scapegoating immigrants, the poor, and «mysterious foreign evil-doers». The wealthy don’t mind this distraction; they welcome it and let the populace believe it – and by hearing it repeatedly, they even believe it themselves.
If the established parties wanted to get rid of the AfD and chauvinistic/racist thinking, they’d have to admit their own faults and make clear for whom they have worked so adamantly over the years. But hey, who would want to do something like this? Who would want to go to «such extremes» as long as the profits still pour into one’s own coffers?
And particularly since everyone knows: the AfD stays nicely on course, i.e., hardcore neoliberal, and therefore won’t threaten the wealthy in any way and won’t put the “really nasty” ideas into the heads of the masses.
And why should young people "trust" institutions that insist upon immiserating more and more of them? Jonathan Hopkin's "Anti-System Politics: The Crisis of Market Liberalism in Rich Democracies" explains the meltdown of the old centrist parties, and it's rooted mostly in their clinging to a neoliberal consensus which has comprehensively failed. As this failure becomes increasingly impossible to hide, the electorate is abandoning the reviled "uniparty" in every country where what I call the "radical centrists" have dominated since the Clinton/Blair era.
While the unrest in Germany is most obvious in the East (well, duh, it's the poorer region) don't think for a moment that it isn't coming soon to the West ...
Suggesting a stop to immigration is a bad thing is Nazism. No human is illegal