• nichtsowichtig@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    there is only one real shot at banning the AfD. if the courts decide against it, I assume it would be almost impossible to try again. That’s why I can understand that people are cautious.

    • Saleh@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      “being cautious” with the AfD is what let us here. Trying to “fight the AfD with political content” only led to taking their positions and strengthening them even further. Almost all parties in the federal parliament would rather let the AfD take over than address social issues.

      So inside the current system it is the only option left to prevent the Fascist takeover.

      • nichtsowichtig@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        You don’t seem to understand my point. If I say that there is only one shot we have for a ban, then I don’t mean to say we shouldn’t bother trying, but we should be careful and precise when we do. The bars for banning a political party are (somewhat understandably) high. I’m not opposed to banning the AfD - but speaking pragmatically, if the timing/conditions aren’t right, the prohibition won’t get through.

      • seeigel@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        The origin of the AfD is that a stable euro was promised but not delivered.

        Better and more honest politics would prevent the AfD.

        But the main problem is that the media provided the attention. The conflict is wanted by the upper class. To resolve the AfD within the system, alternative media has to be established.

        • LemmeLurk@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Could you please elaborate how the euro is not stable? I don’t really get that point honestly, although I know the origins of the AFD are mostly about being against the euro

          • seeigel@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            I haven’t found a good article that explains the early AfD position so I try to explain what I can remember.

            The core should be that one currency for an inhomogenuous political entity is not a good idea. Usually, countries with weak industries can devalue their currency to offer their goods at competitive prices on the global market. This effectively means taking value from whomever owns money or receives wages that don’t adjust immediately.

            If there is only one currency, and if that currency should remain stable, somebody else has to pay to adjust the prices. This can be seen in Germany after the unification when there were additional taxes in the west to finance the east.

            Now the promise to the Germans was that the euro would be stable but also that they wouldn’t have to pay for it.

            Economically, this doesn’t make sense, as scientists had pointed out, but they were ignored. (Thus the original AfD, to have an alternative to the established parties.)

            Now the euro is quite stable. So who paid?