Just Sopo or anti-fascist Wipo are not alone sufficient to combat the slide to the right and yet are not in sight

dossier

It is undoubtedly true that (qualitative and ecological) prosperity for all and a fair social policy - urgently needed in both the East and the West - can weaken right-wing movements. This was the case, for example, in the 60s and 70s - when the so-called “guest workers” were largely welcome because they did dirty work that no local people wanted to do and were under no pressure to do. But why was the “boat suddenly so full” that there was not only racist terror, but also severe restrictions on asylum rights in the early 1990s? Because the temporary relative prosperity (of course never for everyone) through the failure to denazify only led to the repression of the very ideology to which the AfD, for example, adheres today. If capitalism can no longer or does not want to realize its promises of justice, racism will come to light, which has never been gone and could only be concealed with a little more social policy - wouldn't its lack otherwise strengthen the anti-capitalist movement? See some initial information about the hopefully broad debate in the new dossier:

• Antifascist politics must politicize “zero-sum thinking” differently: distribution conflicts and inequality (again) as a vertical conflict between top and bottom
  “Of course we have to assume that the AfD can still be stopped, says sociologist Carolin Amlinger. A conversation about anti-fascist politics. (…)
  taz: But the AfD is - like the Republicans in the USA, for example - a party for higher earners. Why do ordinary workers vote against their objective interests?
  Amlinger: Because they perceive society, democracy as a whole, as a society of collective loss. Even if they haven't suffered a decline, they worry about it, so they have a certain fear of status. However, they do not attribute this fear to the increased inequalities or the federal government's austerity policy. No, they project it onto migrants. And even identify themselves with performance and competition.
  [ taz: In the book “Lust for Destruction: Elements of Democratic Fascism,” which you wrote together with the sociologist Oliver Nachtwey, you describe the cause of this projection as “zero-sum thinking.” What does that mean?]
  Amlinger: When people no longer perceive the world in which they live as one in which resources are growing but are shrinking, the logic of social conflicts changes. It is often no longer a question of how the distribution is distributed, but rather of who is allowed to sit at the table. Climate change is fueling the awareness that our own future is dwindling.
  [ taz: So the promise that certain policies will make others worse off is enough to make you feel like it would make you feel better. Without that being objectively so.]
  Amlinger: Exactly, that's zero-sum logic: The other person's disadvantage is my advantage. This affective bracket holds together the AfD's very heterogeneous voter base: people who are actually economically disadvantaged, especially from the working class, who expect more welfare chauvinism from a social closure. Self-employed people and small business owners who perceive themselves as high performers and complain about a violated reciprocity of the community, which would supposedly advantage low performers. People from the upper middle class who feel their entrepreneurial freedoms are restricted by equality programs, social reforms, and climate policy. (…)
  First of all, it is important to politicize zero-sum thinking in a different way: not to wage distribution conflicts horizontally, not to attribute inequality culturally to migrants, but rather as a vertical conflict between top and bottom. (…)
  We urgently need to curb the enormous wealth inequality in our society. The highest incomes must be taxed much more heavily in order to create funds for expanding the welfare state and infrastructure. High assets and inheritances too. We need a social renewal of democracy so that everyone has the opportunity to lead a dignified life. There is also a need for social spaces where people can get together. Open meeting places where social groups come together and can thus experience security - but not regressively as a community that isolates itself from the outside world. A lot of this has already been successfully tested in Saxony-Anhalt…”Interview by Tobias Bachmann from September 14, 2026 in the taz online (“Carolin Amlinger on defensive politics: “We need a social renewal of democracy””) – see more on “Destructiveness – Elements of Democratic Fascism” by Carolin Amlinger and Oliver Nachtwey here below
• Nationalism: The poison of the middle. It is said that fears of relegation are promoting the shift to the right. But doesn't it also depend on what specific fears people have?
  "For many people, the federal government's social and labor market reforms mean significant restrictions on their claims and rights. The government coalition justifies its projects with the aim of making the welfare state financially sustainable and strengthening the competitiveness of companies. The reforms are also intended to undermine the AfD. Because "in a society in which the practice of overcoming crises on one's own strength disappears, the susceptibility to supposedly simple solutions increases," explains the "FAZ". Social cuts as practiced anti-fascism. From the left There is a corresponding counterposition. It is precisely the anti-social, neoliberal policies that reinforce the right-wing trend. "The rise of right-wing radical parties like the AfD was only possible because the so-called center parties pursued neoliberal economic policies," says economist Tom Krebs.
  Both sides assume that it is people's economic situation that influences their political stance. But the real or feared financial difficulties are only the starting point. What matters politically is the interpretation of this situation. What do people see as the crisis and its causes? Only then does a real or feared loss of income become a political preference. As the climate protection activist Carla Reemtsma puts it: "Anyone who thinks that fascism can be adequately combated with acceptable living conditions and secure jobs is ignoring the mental poison that allows right-wing ideologies to get caught up in the first place." (…) The “intellectual poison” – as far as the economic situation is concerned – is now being interpreted by the centrist parties. In the form of its central crisis narrative. (…)
  This existential crisis has its origins abroad (…) According to the crisis narrative of the center, this attack from outside threatens “our industry” and thus “Germany, our country” (Friedrich Merz). This narrative is based on the representation of the capitalist class society as a large cooperative, a large community in which everyone makes their contribution: the wage earners offer their work, the companies the machines and factories. Together they produce the gross domestic product of the economy or the national income - "domestic", "nation" and "people" define the boundaries of this production community, which is said to have fallen into a crisis. The productive wealth of society exists as private property with extremely unequal distribution. But it is presented as shared prosperity and a shared concern. “Industry is the engine for the German economy,” the Foreign Office tells the population. “If our economy is doing well, that means more growth and therefore more prosperity for us and all of you.” (…)
  A left-wing economic policy is therefore faced with a decision. It can hold on to the middle narrative of a homeland threatened from outside, defending the location against international competition and presenting itself as the better alternative for this project. (…) Or the anti-fascist economic policy insists on its demands for at least a better life for people. However, it then opens up a contradiction to the program of providing or securing global market shares for domestic companies through increased competitiveness and cheaper prices for the population. It would be a rejection of the location and crisis narrative that the center has successfully established among the population - this is shown by the election results and surveys, according to which the majority apparently want less social security and more a strong Germany. In order to win majorities for the left-wing program, a lot of persuasion would be necessary. Because anyone who is against the right has to take on the center. But that would mean leaving the field of economic policy - and the question would be on the table as to what "economy" should actually be and how it should be organized. That seems to be the basic problem or at least the major task of anti-fascist economic policy: firstly, it presupposes a change in the population's consciousness, which it simultaneously wants to create through its economic policy and, secondly, the creation of which requires much more than economic policy proposals. Article by Stephan Kaufmann from August 12, 2026 in New Germany online , see also:
• Are we talking about the right thing? Those who are said to be dead live longer: neoliberalism is supposedly at its end. But instead of disappearing from the scene, he entered into a destructive alliance
  "It is remarkable that the most influential political ideology of the last fifty years is not even claimed by those who have committed themselves to it. When the current German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was asked in 2018 how he felt about neoliberalism, he replied: "It has become a political fighting term. That is why I have always distanced myself from this term." (…) “Neoliberalism is already dying,” writes the political scientist Martyna Linartas in her book “Unearned Inequality” from 2025. And the historian Gary Gerstle has dedicated an entire book to the end of neoliberalism with “The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order” (2022). Now these thinkers have good arguments for their position. There is no denying that the neoliberalism of the 1990s no longer exists in this form; Nevertheless, it would be premature to lay him to rest. Rather, neoliberalism today appears as an ethno-nationalist version of itself as a stirrup of the political right all over the world - and is alive and well in this role. (…) For neoliberals, governments have a crucial function in securing supposedly natural market processes. This requires a strong state that can, if necessary, oppose the interests of workers, for example in order to limit the influence of trade unions. It makes more sense to understand neoliberalism as an ideology that advocates a state in the service of capital and the market. (…) To achieve this goal, neoliberals are also prepared to throw democratic principles overboard and give in to authoritarian regimes.(…) If you focus on the protection of capital and the undemocratic core of neoliberalism, it becomes clear that it is much more than blind faith in the market. And yet it cannot be denied that Brexit, Trump and Corona have wiped many neoliberal certainties off the table, above all the free movement of goods through new customs barriers. What is crucial is that this development has not led to the disappearance of neoliberalism, but rather to a change - its connection with ethnic nationalism. (…) The philosopher Eva von Redecker again emphasizes the time component of neoliberalism. In “This Urge for Hardness” (2026) she defines neoliberalism as an “order that has succeeded in containing the future time”. A central aspect of neoliberalism has always been the financialization of the global economy, especially through new types of financial products. You can use these to make any bets on the future in order to achieve big profits in the here and now. This made the future a property that could be owned - and something that can be owned can also be destroyed. Nowhere is this more clear than in the face of the climate catastrophe and the neoliberal belief that market processes can counteract it. For von Redecker, this “liquidability” of the future is a central component of a fascist ideology, thereby building a bridge between neoliberalism and the resurgence of corresponding forces. (…) Radical demarcation applies to the outside world, and not just when it comes to migration, but increasingly also when it comes to international cooperation as a whole.At the same time, a tough neoliberal program applies to the “national body of people,” which is no longer determined only by citizenship but also by racialized characteristics: weakening workers’ rights and social systems, limiting the power of unions, securing the influence of large corporations. All of these core elements of classic neoliberal ideology are being enforced by right-wing and conservative parties around the world. But there is also hope in this marriage of convenience between neoliberalism and ethnic nationalism: it is extremely fragile. In the USA, this can be seen in the Republican Party's dispute over the national debt or the differences between Musk and the Trump administration's customs policy. If a progressive left manages to make credible offers to people about how they can improve their everyday lives - and thereby achieve electoral successes like Zohran Mamdani in New York or Pedro Sánchez in Spain - the alliance will not last. In this way, neoliberalism could become an artifact of the past once and for all.” Article by Daniel Stähr in the WOZ from August 13, 2026 
• Anti-fascist economic policy: a suitable strategic term against fascisation? 
  “In November 2024, after Trump's second election victory, the left-wing economist Isabella Weber introduced the term anti-fascist economic policy into the debate (see Nuss in this issue). Despite lively discussion, it has so far remained unclear what exactly is meant by this and what the benefits and limitations of such an approach are. At this point we would like to ask critical questions again and help clarify the matter. (…)
  Carla Reemtsma: When we talk about anti-fascist economic policy, it immediately becomes clear that economic policy always includes more than just employment, inflation or growth figures. It makes it clear that economics inevitably has to do with the state of our society - and as a result, economic policy does as well. It thus becomes a shaping force far beyond the political sub-area of ​​economics. It shapes how people work, what goods are produced at what prices, what role the state plays, and what economic (un)security people have to deal with. Because the effects are so extensive, economic policy considerations should always take more than just economic logic into account. The concept of anti-fascist economic policy consciously takes advantage of these interactions. Without a strong social and economic foundation, a stable and just society is hardly possible and trust in politics and democracy is lost. At the same time, the term suggests that good economic policy is enough to arm a society against misanthropic, authoritarian, and anti-democratic tendencies. This would ignore the fact that fascism is always based on intellectual and moral brutalization. A good economic situation may make people less vulnerable, but it does not protect against the actual dangers of fascism. (…)
  Anti-fascist economic policy begins at a different point: it recognizes the fight against fascism as a central task and fears an increasing susceptibility to right-wing authoritarian tendencies due to economic conditions. Left-wing economic policy, on the other hand, justifies its measures with the claim to social justice and with knowledge of market failure, etc. Left-wing economic policy can, but does not have to, have an emancipatory claim, but anti-fascist ones do. Anyone who thinks that fascism can be adequately combated with acceptable living conditions and secure jobs fails to recognize the mental poison that allows right-wing ideologies to get caught up in the first place. Antifascist economic policy recognizes this and acts accordingly by ensuring better economic conditions as well as trust in the state and fellow citizens. (…)
  Anti-fascist practices thrive on the fact that they are not simply a state obligation, but can be transferred to people's living practices. With adequate insurance, public services and state infrastructure, people can take on care work in the family, engage in civic engagement, experience community and build trust. Where access to cultural and social offerings is less dependent on one's own financial circumstances, where economic inequalities are less pronounced, people interact more across classes and are less caught by "simple enemy images".…”Conversation by Mario Candeias in the Luxembourg magazine from December 2025 with Tom Krebs, Carla Reemtsma and Ines Schwerdtner 
• Sabine Nuss: Anti-fascist economic policy must start at the economic roots
  “What can anti-fascist economic policy achieve?”The political scientist and journalist Sabine Nuss discusses this in her new volume of conversations and with Lukas Scholle inInterview on November 27, 2025 at the business magazine Surplus :"Sabine Nuss: First of all, you have to say that there are now a whole series of attempts to highlight the anti-fascist potential of certain political measures. (...) There have been a number of studies in recent years that have shown a connection between the deterioration of people's material living conditions and an increase in votes for right-wing parties. One study pointed to "higher rent = more AfD." It was measured that if the rent increased by one euro per square meter, the AfD's share of the vote increased Low-income earners have increased by up to four percentage points. There is now a consensus among progressive economists that people tend to vote for the right when their social situation worsens or threatens to worsen. Accordingly, an economic policy is called for that focuses on people's needs for social security Industry, whereby the key point here is that the goal is social integration, which will then curb the rise of the right (…) I spoke to four different experts about the demands just mentioned and asked them about the possibilities and limits. All four argue within the framework of a specific economic paradigm.The answers are, of course, very reflective and thoughtful, but also fundamental. For example, my conversation partner Ingo Stützle, political scientist and editor of the Marx-Engels-Werke, shows beautifully that the dispute over who should pay how much income or wealth tax is one of many arenas of class struggle, if you want to put it in this striking term. This means that a wealth tax could definitely achieve some improvement for wage earners. Ingo calls this “gaining territory.” (…) To stick with this example: The limits of a wealth tax are that it is a kind of ex-post redistribution. The employees are part of the wage-earning class. They use the entrepreneurs' means of production, their business assets, to produce something, such as services or goods. With their work they increase the wealth of the owners of the means of production. The bizarre wealth of the few is always the result of the work of the many. Depending on what it is used for, a wealth tax can give wage earners back some of the wealth they have earned. It is a redistribution, which is better than redistribution. I emphasize “in hindsight” because it doesn’t even begin to touch on the fundamental social relationship of dependency in which wage earners find themselves, we call it exploitation. But exploitation does something to people, whether they are paid well or poorly. Exploitation does not simply describe poor working conditions.It describes a relationship of power to which wage earners are not only subordinate, but which also successfully divides them and enables them to be turned against each other, for example along characteristics such as gender and origin. The effects of these structural problems may be mitigated, but not overcome, by measures that focus solely on a more equitable distribution of disposable income. But that is only one - albeit an essential - aspect of the boundaries that we discuss in the volume of conversations..."(The complete interview requires a newsletter subscription)
  • The volume of discussions “Repressed Capitalism – Possibilities and Limits of Anti-Fascist Economic Policy” edited by Sabine Nuss. published November 2025 by Dietz Berlin at a price of 14.00 euros (168 pages)
• [Review] Lust for Destruction: Economic Decline Strengthens Fascism
  “In “Destructive Lust,” Amlinger and Nachtwey analyze the economy to explain the shift to the right in politics. It is the book of the hour.
  "All over the world, right-wing parties are rising and taking power. Liberal democracies are probably in the greatest crisis since the Second World War. Political debates are also increasingly showing a mixture of anger, devaluation of political opponents and the desire to "tear everything down." But where does this destructive energy come from that is driving more and more people to the right?
  The sociologists Carolin Amlinger and Oliver Nachtwey have now presented a book called “Destructive Lust” that may be one of the most important of the year. They conducted a survey with 2,600 people and supplemented it with interviews with 41 participants. They processed the results into a comprehensive theory of a new, “democratic fascism.” The findings and excerpts from interviews with AfD voters presented in the book offer numerous important insights. The result is a work that was written with the intention of “analyzing fascism more effectively and thereby being able to fight it better.” Sociologists live up to this claim. In contrast to many other works that deal with the rise of the right, Amlinger and Nachtwey consistently start from the economic structures in which our society is embedded and by which it is shaped. Their central statement is: The social momentum of the right arises from a feeling of being blocked. People feel this way, write Amlinger and Nachtwey, "because central promises such as self-determination or advancement through performance are no longer kept." Breaks in one's own life and the fear of loss of status - fed by the hopelessness that the future cannot be better than the past - also play an important role in the desire for destruction across different classes. The real or perceived blockage results in the need to want to tear down social institutions - be it for the sake of destruction itself or to allow a new order to emerge from the ashes. (…)
  The theoretical foundation of their analysis is part of a long tradition of fascism research - from Karl Polanyi to the Frankfurt School - which developed an understanding of how the subjugation of society to the market and hyper-individualization ultimately lead to the collapse of social structures. In this framework, “democratic fascism” can be seen as a consistent result of neoliberal politics: the market is structurally protected from democratic interventions, and politics is designed primarily to benefit the upper income groups. Social mobility is declining and the quality of public services is suffering from chronic underinvestment and privatization. Democracy is being emptied because it can no longer exert any significant influence on the shaping of economic policy. The powerlessness in the face of social structures makes people susceptible to authoritarian populism. According to Erich Fromm, the feeling of a "comprehensive blockade" that prevents a significant part of society from "leaving their desired mark on the world" leads to the "energy aimed at life undergoing a process of decay and transforming into energy aimed at destruction."..." Review by Patrick Kaczmarczyk from November 14, 2025 in the business magazine Surplus – Reading the complete review requires a registration/trial week with the business magazine
  • The print edition of “Destructive Lust – Elements of Democratic Fascism” by Carolin Amlinger and Oliver Nachtwey was published by Suhrkamp in 2025 at a price of 30 euros (464 pages). See the longer oneReading sample
• Democracy: Indispensable welfare state.
  “A functioning welfare state ensures economic stability and contributes to social cohesion. Cuts are the wrong approach
  The future federal government could restrict the welfare state. The coalition agreement between the Union and the SPD includes stricter rules for citizens' money. It is often argued that government and social spending is particularly high in this country - and has risen sharply recently. Only: That's not true, as numerous studies, including those from WSI and IMK, show. “Anyone who talks about a welfare state that is growing unchecked or that the state is generally becoming more and more bloated is spreading a myth that is not backed up by facts,” says IMK director Sebastian Dullien. It was not uncommon for alarmist diagnoses to be based on unsuitable data. It is regularly stated that government spending continues to reach new “record levels”. But since prices and incomes rise every year, new highs in income and expenses are completely normal. If you look at the price-adjusted development of public social spending over the last 20 years in an international comparison, you can see that Germany is in third-to-last place among the 27 OECD countries for which data from 2002 to 2022 is available, with a total increase of 26 percent, and is therefore one of the countries with the lowest growth. (…) A well-functioning welfare state not only offers social security, but also stabilizes the economy, strengthens social cohesion and reduces inequality. However, Germany has slacked off in its fight against inequality, as a recent study by the WSI shows. Both the tax system and the welfare state have recently contributed less than in previous years.(…) The desire for state redistribution is widespread among the population: according to the WSI employment survey, almost 50 percent are of the opinion that people with low incomes should be better supported than before. Around 60 percent think that the state is doing too little to combat inequality. Only a small minority expressly disagrees with these statements. The opinion that the state should combat inequality more strongly is particularly pronounced among people with low incomes and tends to decrease as income increases, with support predominating up to the upper middle of the income distribution..." Article from Böckler Impuls issue 07/2025 
  • for theIMK commentary by Sebastian Dullien and Katja Rietzler No. 11 from February 2024 “The fairy tale of the German welfare state growing unchecked” and
  • demWSI report by Dorothee Spannagel and Jan Brülle No. 99 “Less redistribution: Why the welfare state provides poorer protection against poverty”
• Black-red and social policy: redistribution through racism
  "The day after the federal election there was actually a touch of spring in the air in Berlin - due to the weather. But when it comes to the political weather, Germany is heading into uncomfortable times. Because the small grand coalition that is getting ready to govern the country may succeed in many things. But one thing is certainly not: counteracting the steady rise of the AfD. There is a massive desire for change in broad sections of the republic, they say in attempts to explain this. Because it is no longer like that continue. Because everything is getting worse. And you can actually understand this discontent among the population, because not only the poorest of the poor, but also the middle class has been massively affected by the economic developments of the last few years. The middle class does not mean the normal class of millionaires, in which the future Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, who is obviously unworldly, sees himself well But they now realize that money can be tight for them too at the end of the month (…) From those who have to have to those who are in need. Unfortunately, that's just what all left-wing parties have in their programs. On the contrary, demands for wealth or inheritance tax or an increase in the top tax rate to a level that was still common during Helmut Kohl's time as Chancellor The first is dropped as soon as the parties come into government responsibility.(…) How easy redistribution can be can be seen on the other side of the political spectrum. As a supposed alternative for Germany, the extreme right of the republic only has to shout loudly enough that the migrants are to blame for everything and that the refugees' already minimal support must therefore be cut. That would be the second conceivable approach to redistribution: take it from the most defenseless and pretend that it would relieve the burden on the others. It's best not to let them into the country in the first place. And if they're already here, just throw them out. The main thing is that they don't cost any money. In fact, the AfD is not involved in a single government nationwide. Nevertheless, her desire quickly becomes reality. Not only the Union, but also the SPD, FDP and even the Greens are calling for tougher treatment of migrants. (…) Black and Red will therefore do nothing to oppose the right-wing extremists. At least nothing that can reconcile the concerns of the middle class with the concept of an open society. On the contrary: The coming government will certainly not call it that and will still follow the concept of “redistribution through racism”. Migration is already almost exclusively labeled as “irregular”. That almost sounds like “illegal”. Asylum seekers should be turned away right at the border. Family reunification – actually a Christian idea – is put on hold. Deportations are seen as a goal in themselves. And all of this so that the “foreigners” don’t fall on “our welfare state”. Who benefits from this is obvious. And where is the hope? Maybe April will bring a little bit of spring.” Essay by Gereon Asmuth from April 6, 2025 in the taz online 
• Good life for everyone? Is possible! Economists have concepts for a new form of economics that also undermines right-wing populist politics
  “The gap between rich and poor is growing ever wider - but economists have concepts for a new form of economics that also undermines right-wing populist politics.
  The Greens and the SPD must “finally say goodbye to the idea that neoliberalism can be progressive,” says Isabella Weber in the “Der Freitag” interview. The economist, currently, among other things, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, recently made headlines with her proclaimed concept of “anti-fascist economic policy”. Governments should not simply leave basic needs such as food and housing to the market - and thus also undermine right-wing propaganda. In the USA, for example, inflation has been underestimated despite the successful approaches of “Bidenomics” - average values ​​are often used instead of looking at the specific effects on individual population groups, says Weber in “Jacobin”. Increased prices for food, transport, energy and housing are having a massive impact on the population - the state must intervene here and secure people's basic needs. Her proposal for strategic price controls as a weapon against “seller inflation” was sharply criticized by numerous economists – there is now widespread interest in Weber’s ideas…”Article by Brigitte Theißl in an.schläge issue I/2025 : Hope and Resistance (“A good life for everyone? Is possible!”)
• Anti-fascist economic policy is more urgent than ever - an economic policy that removes the basis for the shift to the right
  “The economic crisis in Germany has led to the strengthening of Merz and Weidel. What is now needed is an economic policy that removes the basis for the shift to the right
  Germany is experiencing the consequences of a failed economic policy: the market fundamentalist opposition from conservatives and the right achieved a landslide victory. The CDU/CSU of the former head of Blackrock Germany, Friedrich Merz, achieved 28.5 percent. The right-wing party of former Goldman Sachs banker Alice Weidel gained 20.8 percent. The reasons behind the choice? A massive loss of trust in the government, an escalating migration debate, the massive loss of real wages in recent years, the ongoing economic crisis. In particular, frustration with the economic misery forms the real basis for the AfD's strengthening. Because when prosperity declines, distribution struggles increase. 37 percent of AfD voters rated their own economic situation as bad. This is closely followed by the Union with 18 percent. (…) The AfD has managed to position itself as an alternative to the status quo for those who are concerned about their economic situation, even though its program de facto amounts to redistribution from the bottom up. The connection is clear: the worse the economic situation and prospects of people, the easier it is for the right to take advantage of the discontent. Everything – but not what we have now – is then the logic of the hour. But this exact problem was known. (…) What is needed now is obvious: an economic policy that offers a solution to the real socio-economic decline and many people's fears of decline that makes their lives better. It's about addressing fears directly and offering a concrete, democratic alternative to the status quo.In the first step, this means a policy that stabilizes essential prices - from food to energy to rents - and a policy that significantly increases wages. Not just in the short term, but also for the future. The suggestions and examples have long been obvious given the governments in Spain and Mexico. In Germany, however, the situation threatens to get worse. Because under Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the real relegations and fears of relegation are likely to become even worse…” Article by Isabella Weber and Lukas Scholle from February 24, 2025 at surplusmagazin.de (“Antifascist economic policy is more urgent than ever”) – the complete text is only available with the free weekly Surplus subscription
• Violent Policies: Governments of the past decades have all protected a system that breeds fear and suffering
  “Violence is not always obvious. It is not just the fist that strikes and leaves suffering in its wake. Violence comes in more forms than a single person-on-person physical attack.
  Parents suffer who sacrifice themselves every day to give their children a better life and yet fail. Children suffer because there is not enough money for their basic needs. And that they are denied the chance to pursue their dreams. Refugees suffer because they lose their home, their environment and often their families and friends. They are fleeing wars, poverty, destruction. On their way to escape they encounter violence again. Through borders, camps, exclusion – and often even death.
  And who isn't suffering from fears about what the next few months and years will look like? Fear of losing your job. Fear of getting sick because there are no reserves to get through the next month. (…)
  It is those in government who keep this system alive with their decisions. They talk about responsibility and stability, but their politics defend the profits of the few while leaving the majority hanging. We should tighten our belts while at the same time reducing taxes for the wealthy and giving away billions to large corporations. (…)
  The fact that we perceive ourselves as competitors for the last crumbs is a strategy. Those who fight each other do not unite. Anyone who constantly has to fight for survival no longer has the strength to defend themselves.” (very nice)Article by Sarah-Lee Heinrich from February 21, 2025 in ND online 
• Call: For social security and fair distribution - against dismantling the welfare state and agitation against those entitled to benefits
  "The welfare state is an essential foundation of society in Germany. (…) The welfare state is currently under threat. (…) We stand together against the precarization of work, the reduction of benefits from pension, health or nursing care insurance, against cuts in benefits for the poorest in our society and against cuts in social services. We stand for solidarity across society. (…) We state and demand: Insufficient propaganda against those receiving basic security benefits is not the answer, but higher ones Wages and better fees. The minimum wage must be increased significantly. The social compensation in social insurance must be expanded: those who pay accordingly must also receive adequate benefits in the event of unemployment, in old age or when receiving sick pay. In order to avoid poverty in old age, the pension level must be increased, or at least stabilized Benefits are too low and must be examined. The zero round in 2025 will lead to a loss of purchasing power. Social and professional participation must be possible for all people.Job promotion is an investment in the future! The constant debates about sanctions, on the other hand, do not help with promotion, but rather stigmatize and exclude. Housing is a human right and an essential element of a dignified life. A sufficient supply of affordable housing must be created through greater public housing construction in order to relax the housing market. Legal regulations are needed to effectively limit the increase in rents. This also relieves the burden on public budgets.”…”From the commonCall from February 1, 2025 at Tacheles from various social associations, trade unions and trade union organizations
• Money or AfD! How the rent crisis and inflation are changing Germany. Low-income earners in cities are turning to the AfD
  "The housing shortage is one of Germany's major crises, which has caused the outgoing traffic light coalition to fail. Rents are rising inexorably, especially in metropolitan areas, while affordable housing is becoming a scarce commodity. This development not only has profound social and economic consequences, but is also increasingly influencing citizens' voting behavior. A current study now shows how the AfD is benefiting from tenants' fears.
  Rising rents as a latent threat
  Researchers at the Mannheim Center for European Social Research (MZES) have investigated how the so-calledRental market risk affects support for the AfD . This showed that low-income long-term renters in cities in particular increasingly turn to the right when rents in their area rise - even if they are not (yet) personally affected by rent increases. The threat of rising rental costs alone is enough to change voting behavior. “They perceive rising rents in their living area as a latent threat to their social and economic status,” explains study author Denis Cohen. The resulting fears of relegation drive them into the arms of the right-wing radicals. A pattern that is consistent with findings from other studies. (…) The fact that the AfD does not stand for a tenant-friendly policy is obviously of secondary importance to those affected. The decisive factor is the fear of social decline, which is stoked and channeled by the right-wing populists. An alarm signal for the established parties to take the needs of tenants seriously and to tackle the housing crisis decisively. (…)
  Crisis helps right-wingers
  In general, he also ensuresInflationary pressures lead to a significant increase the vote shares of extreme, system-critical and populist parties. The increase is comparable to the usual shift in power after financial and economic crises. This is the conclusion of a new study by economists at the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. The researchers Jonathan Federle, Cathrin Mohr and Moritz Schularick analyzed the vote shares of extremist and populist parties in 365 elections in 18 advanced economies since 1948. In Germany, the rise of the AfD and also the Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht can be explained in this way. High inflation is therefore regularly followed by a significant increase in the vote shares of opposition parties. An inflation surprise of ten percentage points leads to an increase in their vote shares by 15 percent or 1.7 percentage points. The study also shows “that the change in voting behavior is particularly pronounced when real wages fall and is less evident when real wages are not affected,” the study summary states. Contribution by Philipp Hahnenberg from January 11, 2025 on Telepolis 
• [“The national we is not our we”] Anyone who wants to prevent fascism must break with neoliberalism
  “The neoliberal policies that have made the AfD strong threaten to become even more severe under the coming government. The anti-fascist answer would be an economic policy that empowers people and gives them hope that things can get better again. (…)At this point it should be said that no one assumes that higher wages, lower costs of living, better future prospects and less inequality will turn ideologically consolidated right-wingers into left-wingers or that nationalism and racism will simply disappear. The first thing to do is to ask yourself how these resentments can be politically disarmed to such an extent that they do not become decisive in the election. It's about protest voters who are not yet solid right-wingers, but who can definitely become one if we just carry on like this. And it's about withdrawing the support of these people from the right and thus weakening the AfD's structural structure.
  Critics of this approach such as:Sabine Nuss and Michael Heinrich However, they suspect that this strategy [“anti-fascist economic policy”] represents a disguised local nationalism. For example, they emphasize that higher wages also increase domestic demand, which is why not only employees but also German companies would benefit from this. In the end, anti-fascist economic policy would end up in the same vein as conservatives and liberals who talk about "our economy" and "Germany's prosperity" as if they were looking at a homogeneous community.
  The national we is not our we
  Of course, it is true that liberals and right-wingers deliberately talk about “the economy” in order to disguise the fact that there are opposing interests in this economy. But one should not confuse a policy that increases the bargaining power of working people in this country - regardless of what kind of passport they have - with an economically liberal policy that, on the contrary, strengthens the German private sector and leaves the population defenseless in their pursuit of profit. After all, that’s exactly what austerity is for. (…)It is right-wingers and liberals who want to harness the population into their locational nationalism so that the population accepts the economic cuts that are necessary to make Germany's economic power fit for international competition. An anti-fascist economic policy does exactly the opposite. It works proactively against this economic disempowerment of the majority of the population, addresses the feeling of being at the mercy of those in power in politics and business, and thus strengthens the ability to act in one's own life…”Article by Astrid Zimmermann from December 21, 2024 in Jacobin.de – “An economic policy that empowers people” cannot only exist under neoliberalism, capitalism has to believe in it
• Debate about “Economists Antifa” shows: Anti-fascist economic policy can only be anti-capitalist.
  • The Economists Antifa: Which economic policies could help against the right-wing trend?
    "Why do people vote on the right? Among those who vote for the AfD, Trump & Co, there are an above-average number who are poor or unemployed, who are worried about their social situation, who are experiencing or fearing economic decline. It makes sense to start with economic policy in the fight against the right in order to take away people's reasons for their dissatisfaction. There is no closed concept of "anti-fascist economic policy", as the economist Isabella Weber uses it. What there is, however, is a series of ideas have been on the table for a long time and aim in two directions: Firstly, to give people social security and secondly to open up greater control options in order to counteract feelings of powerlessness (…) There is agreement that the debt brake should be reformed (…) However, this would not yet address the source of social uncertainty: the market itself and its economic situation. In order to create social security, the market logic must be replaced or at least mitigated by an orientation towards the common good. (…) Security costs money, which requires redistribution. There are sources of money: conceivable options include the reintroduction of a tax on assets over one million euros per person, the abolition of privileges for corporate heirs, higher tax rates for high incomes, for corporate profits or income from capital investments. The concepts are there to ensure market income in the company: better wages, more secure jobs (…) But you can't just focus on income, but also on people's expenses.(…) A price cap can be used to limit companies’ demands and thus their profits. (…) Co-determination, however, only expands the participation opportunities of the workforce in companies that are still subject to market logic. A socialization of central providers of public services, on the other hand, would make it possible to put production at the service of all people instead of people at the service of the economy. Socialized companies could produce to cover costs instead of following the pressure to achieve a competitive return on capital. In addition, decisions about operational purposes, products and production conditions could be democratized. This would essentially lay a material basis for the fight against the right. Whether this fight will succeed, i.e. whether people will turn away from the right-wing parties, is not just a question of the material foundations, but of the attitude of the people - how they interpret their situation. In addition to an “anti-fascist economic policy,” enlightenment would therefore remain necessary…” Article by Stephan Kaufmann from November 29, 2024 in New Germany online 
  • Democracy instead of market logic: Economic policy against the right: About liberal and socialist concepts and possible alliances
    "The economist Isabella Weber, who teaches at the University of Massachusetts, recently provoked her colleagues with the proposal of an "anti-fascist economic policy." She reacts to enormously increased prices since the Ukraine war, which recently promoted the re-election of Donald Trump as US President. Weber encourages the liberal opponents of right-wing populism to be more courageous: price controls, excess profits taxes, industrial policy for a green transition. The concept shows cracks in neoclassical economics and breaks with austerity policies of the past. But economic democratic elements are missing, as is the question of ownership. The last time an oil crisis led to an inflation shock, German unions relied on precisely this economic democracy (...) The long-term transformation crisis did not result in regionalized economic democracy, but in autocorporatism the supervisory boards. Their model company was Volkswagen, where the union side was strengthened by the state of Lower Saxony as the owner. In the transition to modern-day financial market capitalism, autocorporatism brought out a lot for the workers, especially in comparison to de-industrialization like in Great Britain. But the model, which was also transferred to East Germany in 1990, proved to be a defensive social partnership Working hours. Under the pressure of global competition, the workforce was open to blackmail, the “flexibilization” tried out in the East soon arrived in the West and continues to plague us to this day.(…) Anti-fascist economic policy, on the other hand, can stop at the liberal defense of the market against monopolies - this is shown by the historic New Deal as well as the current debate. Where this policy serves working people, it is interesting for a socialist left: in disempowering Big Tech, in defending the welfare state or with price controls. But you shouldn't confuse the two concepts. If the left wants to play a role in the polarization between right-wing populism and progressive neoliberalism, then it needs its own ideas - including in economic policy. The demands for socialization, such as those raised by the rent movement, the climate movement and social movements in the health sector, could be the first steps. However, they are only spelled out for parts of the economy, they are not anchored in the unions, and only the rent movement has tried out means of exerting pressure for implementation with its referendums. The debate about socialization has not yet provided a fully spelled out transformation strategy – but it is a start.” Article by Ralf Hoffrogge from November 29, 2024 in Neues Deutschland online 
  • Above all, the representatives of anti-fascism through a different economic policy do not seem to notice that what they are actually saying is that right-wing ideology - even in working class circles - is not possible without the elimination of capitalism. A democracy under capitalist conditions always remains imperfect and endangered. Defending democracy at the moment is not possible without fighting capitalist exploitation – analogous to the climate, by the way.
• Away from the national “we”. The “anti-fascist economic policy” remains an empty promise if it does not break through the national framework.
  “A currently popular explanation for Donald Trump's success is that inflation and loss of income have led to uncertainty and fear of decline among large parts of the US working class. Trump took up these concerns with his “Make America Great Again” campaign in a nationalistic to fascist manner. In order to counteract the rise of the right, inflation must be combated with price controls and social security ensured, according to economist Isabella Weber. She calls this program “anti-fascist economic policy.” In this country too, people are struggling with inflation, uncertainty and fears of relegation. (…)
  The Left party wants to fill this gap with an “anti-fascist economic concept”. It is intended to close the gap between rich and poor to the detriment of the rich, guarantee social security for wage earners and thus also prevent a right-wing party like the AfD from gaining more and more support. There is nothing fundamentally objectionable to this plan. However, for the label “anti-fascist” to deserve its name, certain prerequisites would be necessary.
  Nationalism and class struggle
  It is true that some AfD voters see their economic situation as bad and are afraid of relegation. But this goes hand in hand with nationalist and xenophobic attitudes that were already present among part of the population before the AfD was founded. The assumption that better social policy and higher wage levels could be the central instruments for undermining the AfD is not only too optimistic, the analysis also falls short.
  With the diagnosis that austerity budgets, social insecurity and fears of decline promote right-wing worldviews, it is not possible to answer the question of why it is right-wing and not left-wing views that benefit from them. One reason for this may be that the right is offering something that is familiar to people: the national “we.” The middle class lives it. It's always about "our economy", "our country", "Germany's prosperity". This becomes particularly clear in the debates about international competitiveness, when it is repeatedly said that “we” must or “Germany” must become more competitive. This assumes that the nation is a harmonious community of interests. Right-wing ideas can easily attach themselves to this national framing of the bourgeois center. A left that advocates an “anti-fascist” economic policy must say goodbye to this national “we”. It is not only compatible with right-wing ideologies, but above all it covers up class differences (…)
  For example, when the left advocates for wage increases because they stabilize overall economic demand - i.e. the higher wages not only benefit wage earners, but also "our" economy as a whole - one remains within the harmonious idea of ​​"we". It is seen that within this “we” there are different groups that participate in the result in different ways. Some receive their wages, others profit and a third group receives interest on borrowed capital. But the illusion remains that there is a “fair” distribution that would get “our” economy going again. But such a fair situation does not exist, there is only the fight for these shares. That used to be called class warfare. (…) Criticism of the “super-rich” also threatens to lose sight of the fact that it is not their wealth that is the fundamental problem, but rather the social and economic conditions that make this concentration of wealth possible in the first place. This concentration is neither accidental nor the result of a “misguided” policy. (…)All of this does not mean that a left-wing economic policy is not possible at all. Emergency measures should limit the damage that the capitalist mode of production causes to people and nature. At the same time, however, they should be embedded in a longer-term concept for overcoming capitalism…”Article by Sabine Nuss and Michael Heinrich from November 22nd, 2024 in ND online – our speech…
• [Administrative arbitrariness, attacks on human rights and populist fear-mongering] Asylum and citizens' money: "The constitutional state is not in good shape"
  The labor lawyer Regina Steiner and the researcher Maximilian Pichl inInterview by Pitt von Bebenburg at the Frankfurter Rundschau online on September 26, 2024 "about administrative arbitrariness, attacks on human rights and populist fear-mongering. (...) Steiner: The German constitutional state is not in good shape. Because fundamental rights and social rights are being undermined more and more, not just in the right to asylum. I'm thinking of the citizen's money that replaced Hartz IV. (...) Citizen's money was praised as an achievement after Hartz IV. The rates have been increased slightly. But there is still a shortfall in citizen's money. And there still is I don't think that's justifiable. Article 20 of the Basic Law guarantees that we are a welfare state and that we secure basic services for people. (...) Pichl: We have been seeing a cascade of proposals for years in which basic and human rights are undermined. There is an idea of declaring a “national emergency”. This would mean that only the primacy of politics would apply, not the primacy of law. Such an “emergency” can be found in the European treaties. However, the European Court of Justice has not declared it applicable in a single case. Not every European partner should be able to simply declare a national emergency and suspend European law. (…) In addition, every person who applies for asylum is entitled to a constitutional procedure. (…) We are observing a type of authoritarian international that has many things in common: the attack on constitutional justice, the attack on human rights, the withdrawal from international pacts.We can also see in Germany that right-wing forces are gaining strength and want to undermine democracy and the rule of law. Steiner: Protecting constitutional jurisdiction is of little use to us if the country moves further and further to the right. The idea was to protect the court from rights being able to replace judges if they came to power. But if society as a whole moves to the right, that won't be of much use to us. (…) After the attacks in Solingen and Mannheim, we have a climate that is being served. This topic dominates the headlines. I don't want to downplay this. But when the security apparatus is upgraded to such an extent, one has to ask oneself: Where does the fear come from? Is this really justified or is it just part of a populist opinion process?”
  • See also our dossier on the subject:At the authoritarian tipping point: “Law and order” politics is booming 
• The other conflict: On the success of the extreme right, the social question and distribution struggles between rich and poor
  "The results of the state elections are not only shocking because the extreme right-wing alternative for Germany has never done so well in any election and even became the strongest party in Thuringia. The electoral successes are also an expression of an ethnicization of the social sphere. Counter-strategies must take this fact into account. (…) In Thuringia, 49 percent of workers [the AfD] voted, although this value is put into perspective somewhat because the categorization as workers is based solely on the information provided by those surveyed. The survey also showed that the vast majority of voters from all other parties are of the opinion that a change in migration policy is necessary "so that fewer people come to us." (...) The social issue is distorted in a racist way. It should not appear as a distributive injustice between rich and poor, but between "Germans" and "foreigners." Federal governments that have consistently addressed increasing social uncertainty with a policy of internal security. Crime has always been culturalized. Restrictive, unconstitutional changes in asylum law are presented as supposedly effective measures against terrorist threats and crime. And finally, the shift to the right that has been initiated in this way should be countered with concessions to the rights that strengthen them even further.Deportations “on a large scale” and corresponding cooperation with Islamists like the Taliban are gains for the right and are absurdly sold as a policy that counters the danger of Islamism. But the debt brake and its local effects are also paving the way for the right-wing advance. Instead of investing in kindergartens, schools, local transport or hospitals, municipalities in particular are being cut short. (…) In the medium term, democratic and progressive structures and alliances must be strengthened and built. (…) At the same time, the ethnicization of the social question must be removed from the ground by emphasizing the social character of conflicts again. Discursively in the communication of democratic actors, but also practically through social struggles. A few months ago, the train drivers' union implemented the 35-hour week, an example that other professional groups will follow. Verdi and the NGG union have also carried out successful labor disputes and, after a years-long downward trend, recorded an increase in membership. And it wasn't long ago that Björn Höcke was chased from a rally in Eisenach, Thuringia by trade unionists and Opel workers. That was right because it made it clear: the fascists are not on the side of the workers. In addition to concrete protection, broad alliances and determined anti-racism, social struggles for housing, work and life must be organized in order to enable experiences of empowerment in solidarity and to strengthen perspectives that understand social conflicts again for what they are: conflicts between top and bottom. Guest article by Sebastian Wehrhahn from September 6, 2024 in New Germany online 
• It's not (only) due to migration policy: worries about the future, migration of young people, loss of public services as key factors for the electoral success of the AfD and BSW
  • [Study] Income, demographics and education in the districts are key factors for the electoral success of the AfD and BSW - politicians must invest more in structurally weak and demographically older districts
    "... The Alternative for Germany (AfD), which the Office for the Protection of the Constitution has classified as right-wing extremist in parts, and the newly founded Sarah Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) are achieving electoral success primarily in regions with negative structural characteristics: In the East, the populist parties are particularly strong in aging circles and those with low levels of education. In the West, they also perform better in regions with low incomes and those with many employees in industry, whose jobs are threatened by increasing automation. Beyond these negative structural characteristics, it depends on In West German circles, a high proportion of people without a German passport coincide with support for the AfD and BSW. These are the core results of a new study by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin). the districts,” said DIW President Marcel Fratzscher. "What is needed are future investments that improve the economic competitiveness of structurally weak regions. There is also a need for an economic and social policy that better supports structurally weaker and demographically rapidly aging regions," emphasizes Alexander S. Kritikos, scientific member of the board of DIW Berlin. (…) Compared to the 2019 European elections, support for populist parties in Germany has increased by eleven percentage points.The study authors see the fact that the unequal economic, structural and demographic conditions in the districts have not improved since then as the main reason for the increase in votes. “Politicians must do more to create living conditions in Germany that are as equal as possible and to open up opportunities for regions that have been left behind,” says Alexander Kriwoluzky, head of the macroeconomics department at DIW Berlin and co-author of the study.” DIW press release from July 26, 2024toStudy in the DIW weekly report 30/2024 Read the full story at the source

    Source: labournet.de