At the authoritarian tipping point: “Law and order” politics is booming

dossier

“… In climate research, a tipping point is a moment at which – according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – “a critical limit” is reached, “beyond which a system reorganizes itself”, new processes become entrenched and negative dynamics accelerate. This can also be transferred to social tipping points. Tipping points do not arise by chance; they are the result of destructive processes that occurred long ago. But in contrast to the climate, social processes are never irreversible. However, established discourses, structures and norms are often irreversible. Once authoritarian tipping points have been passed, the ground on which plural and democratic societies stand becomes fragile..."Commentary by Daniel Mullis, Maximilian Pichl and Vanessa E. Thompson from June 16, 2023 in the taz online , see more about it and this:

• [“The opposition to right-wing extremism appears to the state as a scandal.”] The dignity of the right-wing extremist
  "The question from SPIEGEL as to whether Germany is in danger of slipping to the left now seems like a piece of real satire in a country that has for years viewed every debate through the lens of a supposedly omnipresent left-wing enemy. While politicians, editorialists and talk show groups are working like a prayer wheel to ensure that the real danger is on the left, a remarkable right-wing blindness, even a legal matter-of-factness, has spread in people's minds and actions. Everyone is celebrated politically and in the media Mosquito on the left horizon, but overlooks the right-wing extremist elephant that has long been rumbling through the fragile porcelain shop of democracy. In my ideal of Germany, the state would have honored those young people who stood resolutely in front of the synagogue gate in Halle. It would have thanked them from the bottom of their hearts because they saved us from a shameful scandal that a well-known right-wing extremist was at the scene of a right-wing extremist attack on Jewish lives puts this hagestolz in the spotlight right there (…)
  However, in my reality the opposite happens. And that on all levels. Halle is no exception and therefore not a warning sign, but is now normal in the Federal Republic. (…)
  A normality in which it is not the dignity of the victims that appears to be worth protecting, but rather the dignity of those who took center stage on their day of remembrance. The dignity of the person who wanted to turn the memory of the victims into victory over them, both in the media and in fact, was considered more worthy of protection through his appropriation of the place and the memory. This is no longer about protecting dignity, but rather about perverting it: it is not this affront that is suspected on the part of the state, but rather the resistance against it. And that is precisely where the bitterness of our time lies: the opposition to right-wing extremism appears to the state as a scandal. (…)
  Not the thought that some young people have rejected a right-wing extremist, but that too many people at the polls believe that right-wing extremists should once again lead the country's destiny. That in the last few decades too many in state and federal politics have understood the loss of the overall social compass as politics itself, and have not only made themselves subservient to the slide to the right, but have been pursuing it with power for years. This is where we stand now. In Halle, Germany. Alerta!” Comment by Guido Kühn from October 17, 2026 at Patreon.com – please read completely!
• Philosopher and fascism researcher Jason Stanley: "Things could get really bad in Germany. Worse than in the United States." 
  In theInterview by Marc von Lüpke on August 14, 2026 on t-online.de The fascism researcher and author of the book “Fake History”, Jason Stanley, explains his view on fascist development:"Actually, I only have one fear: and that is that I haven't done enough against fascism. I never want to have to make that accusation. But in Germany you should really be afraid. (…) From the USA we know these videos of how migrants are dragged out of cars by ICE officers and handcuffed in front of their children. This can also happen in Germany, here it can even get worse. (…) Yes, democratic Germany has learned from history, but it has The wrong conclusions were drawn. Fascism was never gone, it is a timeless threat (…) Because of its culture of remembrance of National Socialism and its crimes, democratic Germany believed itself to be immune to a new fascism. But the Holocaust of the Jews and the memory of it is now not a central issue for the AfD (…) The enemy image of the AfD is now the Jews (…) As a German and a Jew, it is extremely important for me that in Berlin There is a monument for my people. My father's family was at home in Berlin, and it is incredibly important to honor the fate of my people in the immediate vicinity of parliament. But I am worried: If we do not draw a universal moral lesson from this past, such monuments are hardly a weapon against fascism (...) For me it is a given that Muslims can also live freely and equally cause, then that's how it is.(…) What is too often forgotten: the authoritarian right is pursuing a global strategy. They are working together against us. They are united by a passion. (…) A fascist system only allows one perspective on history, it cannot tolerate anything else. (…) History is currently being falsified everywhere. It is important that we stand up against it. (…) For Trump, the USA is a nation of white, Christian men. If these white men have also done bad things, history needs to be “corrected”. But things get even worse. Not only is white male history being “corrected,” but the merits of minority people are also being removed. The so-called Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, for example, runs this game in the Pentagon. (…) This discussion [around the use of the term fascism in relation to the Trump administration] is a bit tiring. In fascism there is the nation, the people, which is defined by blood or religion, as well as the people who are not supposed to belong. You create fear of these people, in this case immigrants, who are demonized. Add to that Trump's disregard for the separation of powers, his authoritarianism, and corruption. You portray your own nation as innocent, anything that bothers you is removed and history is falsified. It all fits together. I also think it is more important to fight fascism than to constantly ask the question whether we are even dealing with it. (…) The democrats of this world must show that they are there and are not playing this game. Immigrants, journalists and democratic institutions must be protected..." (Note: Jason Stanley's “How Fascism Works” (paperback, 14 euros, 216 pages) will be published in September 2026; “Fake History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future” (paperback, 22 euros, 208 pages) published July 2026 – first edition 2024))
• “Resist!” authors: “There is no major breach of taboo in Germany. Based on our history alone, we should deal with the current situation differently, but we don’t.” 
  In theInterview by Christian Vock from August 15, 2026 in the web.de magazine The “Resist Yourself!” authors Dirk Laabs and Michael Kraske oppose the position that the rise of right-wing extremists cannot be stopped. Everyone can do something about it - as Danger Dan's song "Don't be afraid" shows the authors as an example."Dirk Laabs: (...) In many places people apparently don't want to understand that Danger Dan and Igor Levit (...) are rightly warning that we are at a tipping point in Germany. For the first time since May 1945, a right-wing extremist party could come to power in parts of Germany in just a few weeks. There is no major breaking of taboos in Germany. Based on our history alone, we should deal with the current situation differently, but we don't. (...) Michael Kraske: We don't want a book for a few affected people or for a few political activists, but also for the large silent majority who have so far stayed out of it (…) We want to make it clear: This threatening gain in power by right-wing extremists affects everyone. It affects people with a migration history, people of color, disabled people, old people, women, Jews, everyone who has a different sexual and religious orientation than what is supposed to be the “German norm”. Our central message is: It's no longer enough to stay out of it. We have to fight for our free life in this country. Not at some point, but now and in all areas of society. (…)
  Laabs: (…) We know from studies that the absolute driving force behind the success of the AfD is racism. This is sophisticated racism, no longer latent but manifested. Especially, but not only, in East Germany. The AfD mobilizes this, reinforces it, and in the end the party and the racists reinforce each other. But this is rarely discussed seriously. (…) The majority of the AfD electorate does not vote for this party out of protest or out of diffuse anger, but rather they agree with the ethnic-nationalist core solutions of the AfD, the studies are clear on that. That doesn't mean that there isn't anger and dissatisfaction, but the number one trigger for voting for the AfD is racism. They want exactly this hard, brutal, ethnic solution and policy of the AfD. But many politicians no longer dare to say this and the media also shy away from it. (…)
  Kraske: (…) We want to get away from the feature debates. We want to look at what the situation really is and then show: What can we do now? Because as difficult and delicate as the situation is, nothing is lost. We still have it in our hands to turn things around – if we act now. (…) Laabs: The solution is a tough fight, a tough confrontation. The messing around has to end. And Democrats should finally stop copying the AfD rhetoric. Extremists only understand one language and that is harshness. They thrive on the weakness of their counterparts. (…) When it comes to the [AfD] ban process, for example, you hear too much clueless talk from too many protagonists. There is a quote about the ban procedure that everyone should know and it comes from the Federal Constitutional Court itself. “If a political party aims to eliminate [our]…freedom order, its ban is not aimed at restricting but at granting democracy and popular sovereignty.” You should know this sentence when commenting on the topic. (…)
  Kraske: (…) There are so many people in this country who are extremely committed. They are ready to defend this democracy, they are just being let down by too many at the moment. That's why our appeal is not that these committed people have to shoulder even more, but that the others are now asked to join in. And in our book we show in which areas of society more is possible. (…)
  Everyone can start immediately and do something concrete. That's why we provide the tools for a very low-threshold commitment in the book. For example, to contradict families, friends or clubs when racist remarks are made. If you want to do more, you can start in your own company, church community or school. You can look for like-minded people, organize awareness campaigns and invite external professionals for workshops. But it is also important to increase the pressure on politicians, because Family Minister Karin Prien, for example, is planning to cut back on democracy promotion. Experienced actors in the fight against the right should be sidelined. That is fatal. So my message is: Get started, at all levels! Laabs: My message is: nothing is lost yet. This is very important. Don't play this game or believe in the talk about the last patron of democracy. You have to recognize the seriousness, but nothing is lost at all. Because: We haven't done anything yet! So: join existing groups, participate, implement new ideas. Resistance begins with each individual in everyday life. (…) If there were really a right-wing extremist takeover of power, the Basic Law provides for a right to resistance. (…) There is absolutely no shortage of things that we can all do now. However, there is currently a lack of will to really defend oneself. So in the end we can only beat ourselves.”
  • Note: "Resist! How we can defeat the new fascism together" by Dirk Laabs and Michael Kraske was published on August 13, 2026 by Kiepenheuer & Witsch, paperback, 352 pages at a price of 20 euros
• [Book: »Education to Cruelty. The mass psychology of the new fascism«] Years of inhumanity: Fascism as a process of brutalization
  “For thirty years, and in some nations even longer, we have been witnessing a rise of right-wing populism. Ultra-right parties are not only becoming stronger, many are also gradually becoming radicalized – or even rapidly. And a cult of toughness plays a crucial role in this, holding the strange alliance of New Fascism and ultra-liberals firmly together.
  A few years ago one could still speak of the emerging “right-wing populism,” but today that would in many cases be a trivialization. Right-wing extremism or new fascism is a much better idea if you consider that fascist movements are characterized by a number of characteristics: cult of the leader, paranoid worldviews that are constantly fueled, black and white thinking, antagonistic images of enemies, especially of minorities, but also against supposed internal enemies. (…)
  Seen this way, fascism is more of a mood that gradually grips you and overwhelms you. The affects of hurt, fear, envy, resentment and the longing for redemption, they are all contagious - and this contagion does not just run from the agitators to the supporters, but has a criss-crossing effect. As with synaptic connections, the connections become stronger the more intensively they are used. Emotions, tone and phrases are adopted and escalate into fanaticism.Fascism is therefore less an ideology than a social process. Contagion is no coincidence; it thrives in environments where feelings circulate like an echo that returns louder than it was sent out. Until in the end the fanatic appears as normal and the normal as suspicious.
  This all applies to parties like the MAGA movement of the US Republicans, as well as to the Alternative for Germany or the Freedom Party in Austria. They have all changed significantly in recent years in a process of self-radicalization. Of course, right-wing populism is not the same as fascism, but the transition is fluid. Anyone who started as a right-wing populist can end up as a fascist.
  And something strange happened and is happening that is still only beginning to be understood today: the radicalization of one party had an impact on the others as a stimulus and a role model. The result is the radicalization of everyone in what has long been a global resonance space. To put it simply: Without Trump, the AfD would probably be more moderate, the FPÖ would be less radical without the AfD - and vice versa. (…)
  This is what's new about the new right-wing radicals: They can conquer the White House, the most powerful office in the world, they can control both chambers of parliament, fill the highest court with a majority of loyalists and have Silicon Valley on their side - and still see themselves as resistance fighters against a "left-wing hegemony". All they have to do is regard well-education, respect and generally accepted morality as “left-wing”. The ridicule of disabled people then becomes a countercultural provocation. (…)
  The right-wing radical poses as a resistance fighter against the mainstream - even when he sits in the most powerful office available in the world. The right-wing radical feels chronically oppressed - mostly due to the fact that people with different views also exist - and at the same time in league with a higher power. (…)
  While the USA is gradually and rapidly establishing a fascist form of society, in most European countries it is still rhetoric and the occasional rule of villainy. But this rhetoric and agitation is also aimed at transforming people, feeding the basest instincts and breaking down natural inhibitions against cruel acts. (…)
  The road to the abyss is paved with manufactured feelings of unhappiness, which the right-wing extremists manipulate their followers into. They happily accept negativism and depression from their fans. Because for them they are just cheering human material, useful idiots towards whom one has a cynical attitude. The unhappier they are, the better…”Article by Robert Misik in the newspapers from August 2026 , it is based on »education against cruelty. The Mass Psychology of the New Fascism”, which will be published on August 15th in Edition Suhrkamp.
• Whose freedom? What freedom? Everyone talks about “our freedom”; what they mean by that remains unclear
  ““We will defend the freedom, the openness, the liberality of our lives and our society with everything we can do.” This is what Friedrich Merz said after the attack on the CSD in Berlin. It reads well, but probably didn't sound that good in the original version because the Chancellor's sound is rarely appropriate for the occasion. This time he probably didn't yell at those listening and then tell them to "Step away!" to shout. But: What does Merz of all people mean by “freedom”, “openness” or “liberality”? At least I wouldn't have noticed that even one of these components had appeared in the Merz government's policies so far.
  Queers in particular have a good instinct for freedom in societies. This also includes being able to use self-descriptions and not being told by governments how one should position oneself conceptually in their sense. Karin Prien, who I don't exactly know for a preference for liberality and freedom, deleted "queer" in MAGA style from the name of a department in her ministry and thereby forbade the policy surrounding sexual orientation in the family ministry to be called "queer policy". Administrative imperatives are rarely conditions of freedom. Basic rights do. I don't have the impression that the federal government still respects fundamental rights in its policies. “I want to reach the quiet middle that threatens to turn away from democracy,” says Karin Prien. It no longer addresses upstanding democrats - only those who turn away. It operates with reference to something that is silent. This is politically practical: you just don't know exactly what those who are silent want - but you can use it as a reference, as an analogue to the "true will of the people", just as we know it from Carl Schmitt: "The weakness lies in the fact that the people should decide on the basic questions of their political form and their organization without themselves being formed or organized. That's why their expressions of will are easy to misunderstand, misinterpret or falsify." But if a will is interpreted into their silence, then you can make excellent use of it.Because now there is Ms. Prien who is turning to this silence and using it against the “shrill minorities,” with the remarkable conclusion: “Social diversity is fundamentally positive – but I don’t see it as a state funding goal.” Instead, promoting homogenization and equalization in the spirit of those who do not express themselves and who can be constantly referred to without any evidence? So that they turn back to “democracy”. However, they do not know diversity as a funding goal. What a construction. She could thus find allies in the AfD. They also operate with Carl Schmitt and claim that there is a “true will of the people” within them. Bundestag President Julia Klöckner also implicitly agreed with the AfD in Saxony-Anhalt, which wants to ban rainbow flags in schools, when she banned the “rainbow network” in the Bundestag from taking part in the CSD 2025 as a group. Individual officials, however, are free to do so. She also unleashed the Bundestag administration on the MPs: rainbow flags should be removed from the windows of their offices. And it banned MPs from wearing buttons, including those with a rainbow motif. In doing so, she formally treated the politically active representatives of the legislature like officials of the Bundestag administration - at least that is how it can be interpreted, namely via the dress code. It forced political representatives into the role of subordinates or employees. (…)
  Merz is right: it was about our freedom. We should justournot cede to him. Because the freedom we have to defend is broader than the one he means – and, at best, it is an offer to everyone.” Column by and with Christian Bettges from July 29, 2026
• Authoritarian personality and fascism: Antifa is mental work - authoritarians can hardly tolerate ambivalence
  "... I recently climbed up the ladder of my bookshelves, looking for a book that must have disappeared over the years into the second row of an overloaded shelf. I promptly found it there: "The Helpless Antifascism" by Wolfgang Fritz Haug. The title of the book electrified me forty years ago. It's almost a household word. (…) Haug was primarily concerned with the fact that character development, such as is inherent in capitalist systems, is fertile ground for fascism and its cult of harshness. “But if you don’t want to talk about capitalism, you should also keep quiet about fascism,” said Max Horkheimer pointedly. The philosopher Eva von Redecker recently picked up this trail again. In her book “This Urge for Toughness” she addresses the question of why people fall into the clutches of the right and feel better when others are worse off. She is often amazed and wonders whether there is something wrong with me because she finds it so completely understandable. "We live in a competitive society. Of course, sometimes you feel better when others are worse off," she writes. (…) Redecker introduces the term “phantom possession”. Accordingly, in capitalist societies we are trained to treat everything like property - not just material possessions, but acquired status, our feelings, the respect that we believe we are entitled to. And the claims that we supposedly have and that others are not entitled to are also part of this definition. In short: Our feelings do not come from nowhere, but from the economic system that surrounds us. (…) Posthumous attention is also very unfairly distributed.Most readers of this column have probably already heard the names Theodor W. Adorno, Herbert Marcuse and Erich Fromm. Significantly fewer are familiar with Marie Jahoda, Else Frenkel-Brunswik and Käthe Leichter. This is probably also because they were women. (…) Working and living environments are more easily examined, especially for women. She was a pioneer of class analysis and was murdered by the Nazis in 1942. Jahoda worked on one of the most famous studies on the psychosocial consequences of unemployment and delved into the social psychological dynamics of conformism, prejudice research and anti-Semitism while in exile in the US. Frenkel-Brunswik was a central author of those “Studies on the Authoritarian Character” that we associate exclusively with the name of Adorno, but who mainly edited the parts of the studies into a text with a consistent thread. (…) Frenkel-Brunswik, (…) examined (…), among other things, the “establishment of masculinity in boys”, the frequent display of “toughness and ruthlessness” in young men and the connection between these characteristics and anti-democratic beliefs. (…) For Frenkel-Brunswik, the most common aspect of the personality structure of the extremely prejudiced individual was “his rigidity”, the “rigidity of the way of thinking”, which leaves no room for “ambivalence and ambiguity”. The rigid individual feels threatened by ambiguity. The brilliant researcher later coined the famous term “ambiguity intolerance”. (…) Authoritarian personalities are characterized by a rigid, stereotypical thought structure that can hardly tolerate ambivalence. Ambiguity is avoided and complexity is reduced.This cognitive simplification is not a pure intellectual deficiency, but rather a psychological stabilization technique: in a world that is experienced as threatening, the rigid schema offers support. Prejudices against minorities – including racial madness and fanatical xenophobia – also have the wonderful and dangerous nature of allowing ordinary people in a majority culture to feel elevated. A pathetic anti-fascism that represses these social-psychological dynamics is helpless. This applies just as much to verbal bravado as it does to arrogant condescension, which usually even strengthens the other side. Antifa is mental work.” Column by Robert Misik from July 29, 2026 in the taz online , see also the previous post here:
• Eva von Redecker: “The fascist separates itself from the authoritarian, where not only does the sea rescue fail, but an active pushback happens.”
  “The philosopher Eva von Redecker on the fine line when classifying authoritarian movements, the role of phantom possessions and effective strategies against the right.
  [Are we already living in fascism, Ms. Redecker?]
  No. But in some contexts, fascist actions are already taking place, for example by right-wing extremist terrorists and by parts of the US Trump and Indian Modi governments. (…)
  Modern property can be disposed of indiscriminately and even destroyed. Fascism is a form of rule in which this capitalist logic of property is unleashed. (…) To speak of a fascist logic, we need two elements: a claim to ownership that is exaggerated, almost sacralized. I call these claims phantom possessions. And then there is an enemy who is a thief, a looter or a saboteur. He threatens the phantom property, so self-defense is supposedly justified. A self-defense that says: I can only live again when those who want to take away my pseudo-property are wiped out.
  [What is this phantom possession that fascism so aggressively defends?]
  Phantom possession is the claim that one has something that, when viewed in the light of day, is neither one's own nor one's property at all.
  [Where does this ownership come from?]
  It often comes from outdated claims to power. The real property relationships that structured the relationship between the white and black population in the course of enslavement or from men to women in marriages under guardianship: These are passé. But for some of the previously privileged people, this seems like an amputation: there is still the feeling of wanting to control something, even though the position is actually empty. That's why I call it phantom possession. (…)
  “The fascist separates itself from the authoritarian, where not only does the sea rescue fail, but an active pushback happens.” (…)
  [What constitutes effective antifascism?]
  Antifascism needs two pillars: Firstly, a real social policy of solidarity that reduces the experience of loss and thus takes material action against the urge to insist on phantom possessions and defend them with all means possible. Secondly, a rejection of the fascist enemy images. One must defend all those who are declared phantasms, regardless of whether one agrees with them. That would mean, for example, insisting on the Palestine solidarity movement's right to demonstrate or consistently contradicting the rape myths with which arguments against immigration and trans identity are often linked.
  [Do you fight fascism with social policy?]
  I like to refer to the idea of ​​public luxury: we need places where we can come together as equals and have our basic needs taken care of. This can be public transport and a free healthcare system, but also a well-equipped public pool…”Interview by Selma Hornbacher-Schönleber from July 13th, 2026 in the FR online (“Eva von Redecker: “If it were fascism once the mass murder had succeeded, it would always be too late.”)
  • Eva von Redecker: This urge for toughness. About the new fascism.Fischer, Frankfurt a. M. 2026., 272 pages, 24 euros.
  • See also our dossier:“Righteous” Sopo or “anti-fascist” Wipo – not alone sufficient to combat the slide to the right and yet not in sight
  • as well as the dossier:“Fortress Europe” or: What the walls are doing to US
• [Deutschland-Monitor 25] One in five does not reject a strong leader
  “Almost everyone is committed to democracy - and yet authoritarian recipes find a shockingly high level of approval. The Germany Monitor shows: It is not just crises, but political neglect that drives people towards a strong hand.
  In a time of crisis and doubt, a surprising number of people in Germany are open to authoritarian ideas - such as the demand for a unified party or a strong leader without parliamentary constraints. Nationwide, around one in five people sympathize with such approaches, and in East Germany even one in four. This emerges from the Germany Monitor, a comprehensive study with around 8,000 respondents, sponsored by the Eastern Commissioner Elisabeth Kaiser. In principle, there is great support for democracy and also openness to change, said the SPD politician when presenting the results in Berlin. But it is clear that “our democratic coexistence is also under pressure.”
  Kaiser sees a connection with the feeling of being “left behind” when, for example, local train lines, schools, daycare centers or bars close. “The structural weakness of many regions ultimately creates the breeding ground for the development of populist attitudes,” said Kaiser. “We see this nationwide, it is not a purely East German phenomenon, but we see it even more severe there in structurally weak regions.” Their political response to this is increased regional funding and investment. (…)
  The “idea of ​​democracy” was supported by 98 percent. 89 percent reject a dictatorship under all circumstances. According to the results, only 60 percent nationwide are satisfied with the “functioning of democracy,” and in eastern Germany only 51 percent are satisfied. Overall, 71 percent see a negative development of democracy in Germany. From their point of view, indirect questions from the researchers show the “gray area” where authoritarian ideas are certainly well received. Nationwide, 31 percent agreed with the statement: “What Germany needs now is a single, strong party that embodies the will of the people as a whole.” Another 23 percent at least partially agree. In East Germany, 35 percent fully agree, with a further 26 percent saying partly/partly. (…)
  The central aspect of the study was the willingness of people in Germany to change. Accordingly, 23 percent of those surveyed said they were open to social change and saw it as an opportunity. 52 percent see change as partly good and partly bad. 26 percent are clearly critical and see the risks above all. This group is particularly strong in structurally weak areas in eastern Germany…”Contribution by Verena Schmitt-Roschmann from February 22nd, 2026 in Migazin for theGermany Monitor 25 
• Overcome democracy before it abolishes itself – for the worse! The glorification of democracy blocks the view of the problems inherent in democracy itself
  "But if the wrong causes are attributed to undesirable developments, countermeasures are usually not effective. In this respect, the limited success of attempted defense against the current signs of dissolution of democratic systems is not surprising. The path to an authoritarian republic cannot be stopped with current means. Rather, it takes courage and ideas to exceed the limits of democracy. It helps that you don't have to start from scratch. Some experiments, concepts and historical examples point to possible paths to an emancipatory future. These include some mechanisms in citizens' councils. The Lottery procedures create real equal opportunities and thus protect against the tendencies towards aristocracy that are common in democracy. If they are combined with criteria for the representation of all population groups and especially those relevant to the respective topic, they can also reflect the diversity of opinions and life situations much better than elected committees. Above all, lottery and selection procedures make it clear that the group of people gathered in this way does not represent the “people” as a whole - and does not describe themselves as such. These are some important weaknesses of the democratic system defused. So far, nothing more than an intellectual suggestion has come from the citizens' councils. In addition, the elites at the levers of power pay too close attention to the fact that participation always takes place outside of real influence. (…) Taking a real leap forward instead of constantly repairing the existing system sounds daring, and certainly overwhelming for many.We have become far too used to the fact that reforms and reforms only consist of measures that politicians and the public actually know will not solve the problem. Replacing the type of engine instead of a real change in transport, raising the fences around Europe instead of fighting the causes of flight, shipping surplus food to Africa instead of enabling people to subsist through land reforms - all of these are examples of how politics with timid corrections postpones the problem more than it solves it. Countless such cases could be cited. How can it be possible to move beyond the democratic age to a world free of domination? Ultimately, it's about the whole thing, not just about sub-areas of social design in which politics, the economy and society as a whole constantly fail. One answer is: We are already on the way. And these initial approaches can be encouraging, even if they are still very small. But they already show that overcoming democratic principles can and will enable new and interesting scope. (…) From democracy back to authoritarian forms – no! From democracy forward into the emancipatory future – yes! Or in short: forwards always, backwards never! This is the choice we face now. Doing nothing is also a decision, and the wrong one. It leaves the field to authoritarian forces. The expansion of democratic structures, well-intentioned but poorly done, provides them with new opportunities. A shining counter-utopia beyond the gray monotony of today can pick up people who doubt, despair, give up or, in their fear, harbor completely dysfunctional solutions and hopes.Concrete ideas and steps offer the chance to convince many people that it can work. And that the predictions of doom from those who profit from the disaster are not true.” Contribution from the Saasen project workshop from September 29, 2025 at untergrundblättle 
• Criminalization in authoritarian times: “The punitive side of the state will become more important” 
  "... We are currently seeing an authoritarian turn in politics and society. For a good ten years now, the AfD, a right-wing extremist party, has been shaping political events. It relies on an affective politics of negative feelings, denigration, exclusion and division, which has had a significant impact on the political discourse in recent years. In this way, the party is fueling a mood that exists in parts of the population. At the same time, Donald Trump in the USA again last year with a mixture of populism, untruths and threats won the elections and his politics show how vulnerable democracy and the rule of law are when the ruling political majority is unscrupulous enough. Against this background, the CDU/CSU parties are also taking a new course: Firstly, the AfD's firewall continues to crumble.
  This will also be particularly reflected in the cycle of criminalization. Firstly, authoritarian, populist politics thrive particularly on social division. It needs enemy images and outsiders - which are created through criminalization. The punitive side of the state will therefore gain in importance and within this the function of assigning social positions and exclusion. The other face of criminalization, the democratic, constitutional punishment of significant injustice in individual cases with the aim of resocialization, will become less important. Secondly, in the field of internal security, the AfD has set in motion a populist outbidding race that the other parties have recently been resisting less and less. (…) How much will the cycle of criminalization heat up? (…)
  First: Welfare state and social balance instead of increasing social inequality counteract an overheating of criminalization.
  Second: The same applies to a multi-party system that prevents or mitigates political polarization like in the USA.
  Third: veto players alongside the political forces that can slow down disruptive changes, such as the Federal Constitutional Court.
  Fourth: experts and professional practice in the judiciary and administration that mitigate changes at the political level. These elements have worked together to ensure that in many European countries there has not yet been a punitive turn like in the USA. Further developments not only depend on which direction the Union parties choose: derailment, disruption and cooperation with the AfD or democratic balance with the other parties? What will also be crucial is how other actors and society as a whole react to these developments: to what extent welfare state elements are preserved and social inequality reduced. To what extent the parties in the multi-party system escape the pull of populist politics. Whether it will be possible to effectively protect veto players such as the Federal Constitutional Court. The verve with which administration, experts and professional practice actually oppose attempts at authoritarian restructuring. Civil and human rights can act as a central point of reference for the upcoming disputes.” Guest article by Prof. Dr. Tobias Singelnstein from August 29, 2025 at LTO (The text is the revised version of the opening lecture that the author gave on March 28, 2025 at the 46th Criminal Defense Day at the Ruhr University Bochum)
• The key handover. How the democratic center of crisis-ridden Germany is paving the way for fascism
  "... The ease and smoothness with which the fascistization of the Federal Republic is taking place in the 2025 election campaign can make you downright dizzying. (...) A decidedly fascist regime seems quite realistic from the next legislative period in 2029, as the AfD is also aiming for in its strategy papers. In the country of the perpetrators, their political heirs are preparing to "seize" power again. This is actually not important at all. Because it is precisely the forces of the democratic center that enable an effortless, frictionless transition to fascist crisis management. (…) All of this has its evil internal capitalist crisis logic. The global crisis process is causing the capitalist exploitation machine to increasingly stutter in the centers, including in the Federal Republic of Germany - and within these functional elites, an almost smooth handover of the keys is actually organized, in which the mode of crisis management is ultimately changed. This time, the frothy fascism as a terrorist crisis form of capitalist rule is accompanied by an opportunistic transformation of the entire political system, which is trying to adapt to it through authoritarianism, the production of resentment and populism. The fascist “handover of the keys”, to stay with the metaphor, also takes place within the democratic parties. (…) The crisis theorist Robert Kurz already mentioned this development at the turn of the millennium in his essay Democracy eats its children. Remarks on the new right-wing radicalism correctly predicted.(…) But as soon as the system begins to stutter due to the increasing internal and external contradictions of the exploitation process, as soon as the material gratifications of their subjugation cease to exist for substantial parts of the middle classes, corresponding efforts naturally arise - from the internal logic of the democratic discourse - to drive the exploitation logic to the barbaric extreme. Increased submission to the constraints of capital, which are increasing due to the crisis, is then accompanied by the exclusion and ultimately annihilation of competitors or economically superfluous sections of the population - who are ideologized as personifications of the crisis process. (…) In the context of the fascist extremism of the middle, which foams up in times of crisis, the social Darwinist, nationalist and sometimes simply racist crisis competition is now largely in agreement with the late capitalist crisis reality. (…) The greater the pressure on the authoritarian wage earner, the greater his need to see weaker people squeezed out and exploited just as he himself is. (…) The neoliberal “policy of renunciation” at the beginning of the 21st century – submission to the premises of the exploitation process – thus promoted authoritarian aggression against the victims of the crisis, on which right-wing populist and right-wing extremist ideologies are based in equal measure. The neoliberal ideology of subjugation, which often instrumentalized a hollow concept of freedom, formed the breeding ground for right-wing crisis ideologies.(…) When ignoring the irreversible social and ecological crisis, which capital must fail because it is the cause of it, the ideology and practice of German pre-fascism seems almost inevitable; it also seems to take into account the interests of wage earners who can hope that it will affect the others - the marginalized, who are insulted as “asocial”, the foreigners, the refugees, the minorities, the old, the unemployed, the gays, the transsexuals, etc., etc. (…) Deportations, repression, border closures and authoritarian state formation will not overcome the crisis of capital in either its economic or ecological dimensions. The crisis does not come from outside, it is home-made. The global productivity level, the climate crisis – they cannot be locked out at the borders or deported. (…) Hope for the maintenance of the civilizing process can only be maintained by overcoming capital in agony. This is the Archimedean point that would enable a successful anti-fascist mobilization based on the reality of the crisis. Only in this way could the fascist death cult be successfully combated. The only interest that can be rationally formulated in the long-term late capitalist crisis is the interest in a quickly initiated system transformation.” Post by Tomasz Konicz from January 18, 2025 on his homepage 
  • The most important quote in my opinion: “…The greater the pressure on the authoritarian wage earner, the greater his need to see weaker people squeezed out and exploited just as he himself is. This “authoritarian cycle” also forms the morass that, in interaction with the crises of the 21st century, paves the way for German fascism. The causal connection between the impoverishment and disenfranchisement of the unemployed and the tightening of their own working conditions is ignored and gives way to irrational reflexes of hatred and sadism, which prepare the ground for neo-fascist crisis ideologies…”
• Authoritarianism Study 2024: When it comes to right-wing extremist attitudes, xenophobia and anti-Semitism, the West is definitely capable of learning from the East
  • Authoritarianism Study 2024: Racism: West approaches East
    “Since 2002, a series of studies has been examining how widespread right-wing extremist attitudes are in society. In the West in particular, an atmospheric shift is becoming clear: when it comes to racist attitudes, there is a rapprochement with those in the East - especially when it comes to anti-Muslim sentiment…”Article by Anne-Béatrice Clasmann from November 13th, 2024 in Migazin 
  • All information aboutLeipzig Authoritarianism Study 2024 
  • Authoritarianism study: West and East are growing together
    “Around 35 years after reunification, West and East are becoming more similar: right-wing extremist attitudes as well as xenophobia and anti-Semitism are increasing in western Germany. This emerges from the Leipzig Authoritarianism Study 2024, which was presented today…”Contribution by Michael Klarmann from November 13, 2024 at endstation-rechts 
  • Leipzig authoritarianism study: racism on the rise
    “Xenophobia is increasing again in Germany; The main reason for this is the increase in West Germany. This is the conclusion reached by the 12th Leipzig authoritarianism study, which was presented in Berlin on Wednesday. Since 2002, it has been surveying the population's attitudes towards authoritarian and anti-democratic tendencies every two years.
    Racism is increasing
    The study authors observed “manifest xenophobia” in 31.5 percent of those surveyed in East Germany (2022: 33.1 percent). This includes, for example, agreeing with the statement that the Federal Republic is “infested with foreigners to a dangerous extent by the many foreigners.” In West Germany the value rose from 12.6 percent in the last survey to 19.3 percent. In view of this, study leader Oliver Decker spoke of a clear “atmospheric shift” in the West. Co-leader Elmar Brähler explained: “Xenophobia has developed into a resentment shared across the country.”
    Unsatisfied with the system
    The researchers also noticed a significant decline in satisfaction with the political system, especially in the east: only 29.7 percent of those surveyed in eastern Germany were in favor of democracy as it works in Germany (2022: 53.5 percent). But even in the West, according to the study, only 46 percent are satisfied with the functioning of the state (2022: 58.8 percent) - this is the lowest figure since 2006. The interviewees gave the main reason for this as their dissatisfaction with parties and politicians and a lack of opportunities for participation.
    Back to old role models.(…)
    Even if racism, misogyny and anti-Semitism are on the rise, according to the study, closed right-wing extremist worldviews remain rare. This requires a high level of approval in six dimensions: trivialization of National Socialism, authoritarianism, social Darwinism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and chauvinism. Only 4.5 percent of respondents fall into this category. In the first survey in 2002, the value was 9.6 percent. But here too, according to the study, there has been a convergence between East and West, which is apparently due to the decline in right-wing extremist worldviews in East Germany.”Article by Anton Benz from November 13, 2024 in ND online 
• Anti-immigrant background noise: Theses on the escalation of the migration policy debate after Solingen
  “…Representatives of all parties represented in the Bundestag - with the exception of the LEFT - spoke to Solingen about the need for a change in migration policy. Accordingly, it was not just safety measures that were discussed, such as knife bans on long-distance rail transport, or the question of how the radicalization of young people could be prevented. Rather, the narrative cultivated by the AfD since the so-called refugee crisis in 2015 was adopted, according to which migration, crime and extremism are closely intertwined. This is the only way to explain why the federal government presented a security and asylum package just six days after the Solingen attack, which, among other things, stipulates that asylum seekers will be deprived of all financial benefits for which another European state is legally responsible - the latter on the grounds that the Solingen attacker had avoided deportation to Bulgaria in accordance with Dublin rules.
  But the debate only escalated after the state elections in Thuringia and Saxony on September 1st. CDU leader Friedrich Merz, among others, acted as whip. In a much-noticed campaign speech, he praised all those immigrants who had found their place in Germany, but also unscrupulously incited: "Look at the schools, look at the housing situation, look at the universities, look at the hospitals, look at the doctors' practices, look at the consequences when a country is overwhelmed by migration."
  In short, it was perfectly fitting that Christian Jakob and Maximilian Pichl spoke in a joint article for the taz about a new “eruption of the anti-immigrant background noise”, about one of those periods of racism that have shaped the history of the Federal Republic of Germany for many decades. If you ignore the somewhat different debates about displaced people and migrant workers, it started in 1980 at the latest, when the FAZ on May 8th had the headline “Dams against the flood of asylum seekers”. (…)
  Flight and migration are central transmission belts for the shift to the right, not least because, as the authors Volker M. Heins and Frank Wolff write, “the highly armed borders of the present (…) are disciplinary machines that educate the exclusionary society itself to accept violence and exclusion”. But that means that the shift to the right can only be stopped if the way we deal with flight and migration is put on a new footing. (…) Fifthly, the current discourses need to be detoxified. The fact is that migration essentially has nothing to do with expensive rents, a lack of medical care or canceled classes and should therefore be treated separately.”Article by Olaf Bernau in grassroots revolution 493 from November 2024 , read about that too
  • German asylum policy: The hell of others
    “Germany creates its own perpetrators. Because it is not the migrant who is perverted, but the situation in which he lives…”Guest commentary by Ibrahim Quraishi and Oliver Baurhenn on October 24th, 2024 in the taz online 
  • and theSpeech by Dietrich Eckeberg (GGUA) at the demonstration “Fighting Racism – Defending the Open Society” on October 26th, 2024 at GGUA, a non-profit organization to support asylum seekers in Münster
  • See also:
    • background information on our dossier:Even 20 or 30 years after the arson attack in Solingen: The problem is racism!
    • And nationwide the dossier:Tougher rules for refugees: Interior Ministry wants, among other things, to increase the number of deportations - including to Syria/Afghanistan?
    • as well as the dossier:“Security package” from the federal government to Solingen with facial recognition, big data analyzes and unrelated controls: “Surveillance as citizens expect”
• Sociologist Nicole Mayer-Ahuja on the effects of militarization: “Command and obedience are not democratic values”
  “…The increasing militarization of society is not good news for employees. Anyone who has to sell their labor in order to secure their livelihood is forced to forego their freedom to a large extent anyway: a company is not a parliament; it is not the large number that counts when it comes to decisions, but rather the right to direct. This is particularly pronounced when working in the military: command and obedience are not democratic values ​​- and the more people go through this school, for example through conscription, the more difficult democratization becomes in other parts of the world of work. The discussion about “system-relevant” jobs already had problematic aspects: the suspension of maximum working hours, but above all demands to abolish the right to dismiss and strike, are strongly reminiscent of the “unfree work” that people are forced to do during war. (…) Even more than “locational competition” in the context of transnational production, wars undermine solidarity between workers. At first it seems that governments or companies are not to blame for the existential danger, but rather those who are facing you at the front or at another location: them or us, is often the slogan. It would be urgently necessary for workers and their unions to refuse to participate in times of war - because they are the ones who fall in the battles and for whose education, housing or social security there is no money if armaments profits are subsidized. In addition, the legitimization of increasingly barbaric forms of warfare, which particularly affect the civilian population, further undermines solidarity among workers.The demand for international solidarity is difficult to fulfill, but there is no alternative - in economic wars as well as military conflicts. In the interests of workers, it must be said: Lay down your weapons!“Interview by Benjamin Roth from October 1st, 2024 in Telepolis with Nicole Mayer-Ahuja
• Democracy as an obsolete model? 
  “The western liberal democracies are being shaken by crises: “Is this still democracy or can it go away?” Philosopher Erica Brenner puts this provocative question on the cover of her new book. The philosopher and former politician Julian Nida-Rümelin recommends that contemporaries not adapt to the changing spirit of the times like “ears of grain in the wind” and warns of intellectual civil wars in the face of hate speech and intolerance. “ttt” takes up the debate.”Video of the contribution in the show ttt - title, theses, temperament on September 22nd, 2024 in The First
• The enemies of powerlessness: Current demands for "migration control" show the tendency of liberalism to turn into fascism
  "... 80 years ago, the economic sociologist Karl Polanyi, in his study on the "Great Transformation", took on the self-destruction of liberal societies, which ultimately led to the Second World War. Polanyi described quite pointedly the contradiction of those "market societies" of the time. These nation states, which emerged from the legacy of the Enlightenment, upheld the ideal of human freedom, but their reality was the formal freedom of the market, which was fraught with blatant inequalities and social misery In this increasingly obvious dichotomy between idea and reality, Polanyi recognized that in liberal democracies there is at some point "no other alternative than to either remain faithful to an illusory idea of freedom and thus deny social reality, or to recognize this reality and reject the idea of freedom." (...) Much of the current dilemma of the "migration debate" can be found in this description. recognize: The liberal commitment to human rights and asylum law from civil society to "values-driven" politics is increasingly viewed as simply quixotic. This is why - at least for a third of voters in Saxony and Thuringia - the consequence is to vote out the liberal establishment completely (...) The susceptibility of liberalism to self-destruction lies in its tendency to abstraction.(…) This ideal commitment is the reason why the left always remains a thorn in the side of liberalism and why bourgeois parties prefer the right when in doubt. Traditionally, the left insists that freedom and equality have not yet been achieved and that a system change is even needed to implement the Enlightenment ideals. (…) Fascism uses the real experience of bondage and inequality to prove that the ideas of freedom and equality can only ever be lies. That is why it is directed against the ideas themselves: it would be better for there to be lack of freedom and inequality than to live in the liberal lie. And it is precisely for this reason that anti-liberalism is a unifying factor on the right. But why is this hatred of liberalism so attractive and (again) finding such a mass base? (…) In the same year as Polanyi's "Great Transformation" the infamous "blackest book" (Jürgen Habermas) of critical theory was published in the USA in 1944. In it, Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno also devoted themselves to the contradiction of civil societies, which they simply called the “Dialectic of Enlightenment.” (…) In the chapter “Elements of Anti-Semitism” they derived a striking and, above all, accurate criticism of liberalism, which gets to the heart of the connection described above: Liberalism can only counter the murderous anti-Semitic madness that has gripped bourgeois societies with the idea of ​​equal people. “But since the liberal thesis assumes that human unity has already been realized in principle, it helps to apologize for what exists.”(…) Precisely the unscrupulous instrumentalization to gain one's own power that characterizes fascism is, however, a liberal element - and for Max Horkheimer in 1947 this element explained "the tendency of liberalism to turn into fascism." Because, according to the analysis of his “Critique of Instrumental Reason,” reason has developed into something that no longer means a connection to the truth, but rather a purposeful, rational calculation of one's own advantages. Once reason is reduced to this mere self-interest, “no effective, rational principle of social cohesion remains.” (…) Anyone who considers freedom and equality to be good ideas, but which can never be fully realized in reality, is a liberal. Anyone who considers freedom and equality to be bad ideas that need to be overcome for the sake of their own rule is a fascist. The positions are irreconcilably opposed and yet they merge into one another, as we are currently observing. Their contradiction is a connection, namely as products of a contradictory society. And the dilemma that social conditions force upon us forces us into these conditions. Holding on to a free and equal society means not giving in to this pressure.” Essay by Alex Struwe from September 9, 2024 in Neues Deutschland online – worth reading in its entirety!
• A new authoritarianism is consolidating across political borders in Germany - and a strong left is urgently needed
  • Authoritarian turn: A new authoritarianism is consolidating across political borders in Germany
    "It was exactly 85 years ago on September 1, 2024, that the Second World War began with Germany's attack on Poland. This anniversary has been celebrated as an anti-war day since the 1950s, for a long time in both German states. And actually, one might think, the year 2024 would have offered enough opportunity for a large-scale demonstration of unprecedented dimensions, which, in view of the global political constellation, adheres to the old motto "Never again war! Never again Fascism!” could have prescribed under new circumstances. But the date in 2024 will not be remembered as this day, the anti-war movement failed to materialize. Instead, it will be remembered as the Sunday on which a fascist party won one state election in Germany of the “turning point”, “firewall” and “reason of state” and narrowly missed victory in the second. This was preceded by the attack in Solingen and an unprecedented and bottomless racist outdoing competition, even in the shift to the right here, in which almost all political actors took part. This was also preceded by months in which a complacent German majority society stylized either Palestinians or Arabs as the revenants of German fascism, the fight against which should then also be the responsibility of the immigration authorities. (…) In this new Germany, there is apparently no longer any need for anti-war days. In times when people say “Never again is now!” This can only come as a superficial surprise given the well-founded German reason of state that is being used to support the arms export of a massacre that has now been going on for almost a year.The more German lessons from history are tried, the more they turn out to be empty phrases. (…) And it is not without a certain irony that on the evening of the election it was Bernd Baumann, the AfD's parliamentary managing director, who summed up the political developments perfectly in the ZDF Berlin round when he asked why there was talk of firewalls and the AfD being denied a coalition government, while the AfD had been written off in the election programs. (…) In the general, dizzying crisis situation, the political center has changed its program to security, militarism and crisis nationalism. In a recently published volume of interviews about his life's work, the philosopher Jürgen Habermas impressively identified this as a political "regression" in which the "short-sightedness of a West without a concept" is hidden. Habermas complains not only in the local Ukraine debate about a "persistent rhetorical relapse into a bellicose mentality" and continues: "I am worried that the consciousness of the political elites in the West is now becoming more and more taken over by the logic of war. In the shadow of the danger of a recurring Trump, there was a hectic atmosphere at the Munich Security Conference this year, which almost brought back memories of the war-pregnant dream dance of 1914 let.” (…) But what can that mean? A critical reflection at an appropriate distance about a nationalism newly formed by the logic of war, uncertainty and racism could be a start..." Editorial by Mario Neumann from September 4, 2024 at medico 
  • Democracy in times of shift to the right: Why Germany now urgently needs a strong left
    “The rise of the BSW shows that many Left Party voters are looking for their political home to the right of center. About anti-left hegemony, concerned citizens and a new social foundation. (…)
    In a broad discourse coalition, it was possible to push the ruling Greens, of all people, who are hard to beat in terms of state-supporting pragmatism and who even fall short of the climate goals with their own proposals, to the political fringes as left-wing climate ideologists. Political opponents have become enemies for more and more people who need police protection in the beer tent and an escort when posting posters. We not only live in times in which the right is becoming more extreme and others in the guise of the center are turning to the right, but also in times of populist anti-left hegemony. Neither the weakening Left Party nor the government-critical Green Youth, trade unions or civil society initiatives have anything substantial to counter this at the moment. (…) A double, highly contradictory discrediting of left-wing politics can be observed: it is either accused of being elitist and only concerned with the identity-political concerns of academic, cross-border city dwellers; or it is said that it is ideological and unworldly - an accusation that is always heard when leftists propose social-political measures that would actually benefit a large majority of less privileged people.  The fatal thing about anti-left hegemony is that we depend on a strong left to stop the shift to the right. (…) Being on the left therefore means switching from competition to solidarity in order to remove barriers to freedom and autonomy and to realize equal life opportunities. Being on the left also means understanding the situation as something that can be shaped and changed: where conservatives praise order and many political actors propagate practical constraints in unison, leftists see the rule behind it.Being on the left is therefore associated with a fundamental skepticism towards everything that is considered natural, normal and necessary. Being on the left means arguing about this scope for creativity and recognizing the definition of the supposedly no alternative as the right of the stronger…”Guest article by Silke van Dyk on September 7th, 2024 in Spiegel online 
  • The rule of law does not protect against fascism
    The Italian author Alberto Toscano talks about contemporary fascism and blurred boundaries to normality.Interview by Raul Zelik from September 6th, 2024 in ND online
    Originally published bylabournet.de

    Read the original
    Want more of this in your Google feed?Add Faultline as a preferred source — it'll show up more often in Top Stories.

    Add as preferred source