I’ve written a short essay on why the rise of the AfD in East Germany isn't just a "psychological" lapse of the voters, but a direct consequence of the structural inequality established in 1990. I argue that the current moralizing response from the political center is a form of class politics that actually fuels the fascist mechanism. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this from a socialist perspective.

And they are fascists after all!

It is both the founding myth of Germany and the republic’s most gaping wound: reunification. Yet this term is not only imprecise from a legal standpoint – since what actually took place was an accession – but it also has far-reaching political implications, as it obscures an asymmetrical power structure that was all too often demonstratively evident throughout this process. The fact that the West emerged from the war in better shape was not due to superior morality or way of life, but to the stronger support provided by the Western occupying powers and the resulting infrastructure. What is today marketed as a clear victory for the Western capitalist economic system was in fact the result of the Stalinist-imperialist dismantling of the East on the one hand, and a Marshall Plan that was costly for the US but economically extremely lucrative on the other; measured against this, the East’s economic recovery in the post-war years is all the more remarkable. The social and political realities of today’s East Germany can be seamlessly derived from this structural inequality, combined with the unjust arbitrariness of the Treuhand during the so-called reunification.

The fact that the GDR is still treated as a hellish landscape in West German discourse is symptomatic of a deeper inability: the inability to distinguish between the failure of a political system and the worth of the people who lived within it, although it remains questionable in any case whether this failure was due solely to the nature of the system or rather to the broader context of the war-torn Soviet Union and its policy of extraction, as well as the largely unscathed USA and its enthusiasm for investment and reconstruction. These people are today subordinated to a larger narrative, and if they break out of this narrative by voting for an unpopular party, they are regarded as a case for political psychiatry, not as citizens with legitimate grievances.

Herein lies the real problem with the German debate on the AfD. The party is fascist; this is no exaggeration, but an analytical observation that follows from the very functioning of fascist parties and should be understood as the justification for classifying them on the basis of precisely these criteria. Fascist parties invariably take up legitimate criticism and exploit it to cement systems of power to the detriment of those who originally voiced that criticism. That the oppressed, of all people, come to embrace a fascist party is therefore no surprise, but rather the very structure of fascism itself. The arrogance of claiming that one would not succumb to this temptation in such a situation is class-based; it presupposes that one possesses the material and cultural security that shields one from the urgency of this temptation.

In this sense, AfD voters are often closer to a legitimate critique of society and self-criticism than large sections of the complacent West German centre. This does not make the party any less dangerous; on the contrary, it makes it more dangerous; and it makes the reaction of the established parties, particularly the SPD, all the more devastating. Anyone who lectures the voters of a fascist party in a moralising tone, instead of taking their lived realities seriously, is not practising democratic politics; they are practising class politics of the worst kind.

The only antidote is a globalist, democratic-socialist worldview that does not tell workers what to think, but thinks alongside them. Not the Left, which treats workers as objects of charity. Not the SPD, which has long since transformed itself into an academic milieu party. But a politics that calls structural inequality by its name, and does so right where it begins: not just today, but no later than 1990.

Syndicalist and anarcho-syndicalist unions have addressed the question many times. Here is an answer from IWA:

https://iwa-ait.org/content/statutes

“Anarcho-syndicalism has a two-fold function: to carry on the day-to-day revolutionary struggle for the economic, social and intellectual advancement of the working class within the limits of present-day society, and to educate the masses so that they will be ready to independently manage the processes of production and distribution when the time comes to take possession of all the elements of social life."

Proceeding:

"While anarcho-syndicalism is opposed to all organised violence regardless of the kind of government, it realizes that there will be extremely violent clashes during the decisive struggles between the capitalism of today and the free communism of tomorrow.

Consequently, it recognizes as valid that violence may be used as a means of defense against the violent methods used by the ruling classes during the struggles that lead up to the revolutionary populace expropriating the lands and means of production.

As this expropriation can only be carried out and brought to a successful conclusion by the direct intervention of the workers’ revolutionary economic organizations, defense of the revolution must also be the task of these economic organizations and not of a military or quasi-military body developing independently of them.”

While the answer above includes workers’ militias, the following sketch is a union strategy combined with so called “social defense”:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rasmus-hastbacka-r-evolution-in-the-21st-century

“Central to syndicalism is the idea that workers can sow the seeds of the future by means of how they organize today. This is sometimes called a prefigurative practice.(…)

The syndicalist view is that organizing along industrial lines indicates how production can be managed in the future – by workers’ assemblies at base level, their elected councils, federations and congresses. In the same way, geographical organization gives a clue as how to arrange community assemblies, councils, federations and congresses.”

Thus, labor movements should “displace, overcome and replace” the prevailing institutions of capitalism and nations-states. Furthermore, a social defense is needed:

“During World War I, Bertrand Russell took a stand against militarism and proposed a social defense a.k.a. non-violent resistance and mass civil disobedience. Brian Martin, a contemporary professor of social science, has studied several examples of social defense.

One variant is labor unions in alliance with other social movements. It is difficult for a foreign aggressor to subjugate a people who are engaged in trade union blockades, sabotage and strikes. If unions are decentralized, they cannot be stopped simply by eliminating the leaders.

Brian Martin argues that social defense can be developed into a progressive force, not only against foreign aggressors but also against authoritarian institutions on the domestic scene. See his book Social defence, social change and the text Social defence: a revolutionary agenda.

It is easy to see the revolutionary potential of social defense. If workers build such a defense, they are simultaneously undermining their own state’s capacity for counter-revolutionary violence.”

Why are catholic conservatives socially so backward ? I lived my whole life with conservative catholics and they just suck, if someone doesn't have luck in life they say God hates him if someone doesn't have money they say God hates him, if you say something they don't like they try to destroy you psychologically, I mean WTF is wrong with those people ? The only thing they love about life is money and power

Alkuun mainittakoon suuri ironia, joka on kirjoittaa tämä artikkeli englanniksi, mutta tällä tavoin saavutetaan suurempi yleisö, mikä on erittäin tärkeää näinä aikoina. Kirjoittaja ei mielellään kirjoita Suomen asioista ulkomaalaisella kielellä.

​

The author would like to acknowledge the great irony in writing the following article in English, but this is necessary for reaching a wider audience, as I am sure no more than a handful of Finns will end up reading this.

​

Since the start of the war in Ukraine there has been a major change in the Finnish zeitgeist regarding foreign policy and specifically defense policy, if one is to believe polls. The invasion predictably has been a huge boon to the NATO-hawks in the country, which the entire government are more or less, whether they are open or “in the closet” on the issue. Even parties that have symbolically opposed NATO, namely the Left alliance, SDP and the Center party are “reconsidering” their positions on NATO (with the Center party already declaring their pro-NATO stance) and can be expected to declare their allegiance to the US and NATO within a month. This will once again expose the various “leftist” parties in Finland as the snake traitors to the Finnish nation that they are, though for most people reading this this was already known. Although the “patriotic” Basic Finns party has dropped their façade of being for the Finnish nation too, but this has been the case for a while now, and comes as a surprise to no-one. The bottom line is that there is no mainstream political party in Finnish politics that isn’t bought and paid for by the US, Finland is a vassal state to the US and the government is seemingly wishing to make their allegiance to their Zionist masters even clearer.

​

What is especially concerning is the change in people’s attitudes (coached by NATO-propaganda in the media) when it comes to defense policy. The pre-war rhetoric for NATO was that NATO would increase Finland’s defense's credibility (which apparently is non-credible currently) and thus work as extra deterrent, very fitting for these traitors of the nation to disparage the nation’s defense capabilities to suit their rhetoric. The traitors of the nation want to sell out the nation by making us dependent on foreign states for our defense, instead of building up our independent defense capabilities. NATO membership doesn’t in itself increase our defense capabilities after all, it increases NATO’s defense (or offense) capabilities, while making our armed forces and nation as a whole a pawn, and as we all know, pawns are dispensable. Any state that has to rely on foreign countries in matters of defense is a doomed state to begin with, especially if this aid is expected to come from the other side of the planet from a country that has no interest in giving said aid.

The current rhetoric on the other hand is no longer about deterrence, it is about war. No longer is NATO treated as the tool to keep the peace, now it is the casus belli for war, it is not a question about if a Finland will enter a war, but when. But don’t be mistaken dear reader, there will be a war between Russia and the West, the question is when and whether Finland as a nation can emerge from this war alive. Being aligned to either side in this war means certain and absolute destruction for the Finnish nation, as Finland would be the frontline for this war. A neutral Finland has the possibility of staying out of the war, the worst-case scenario being conventional war alone against Russia, which would still leave the Finnish nation alive in victory or defeat. Such can’t be said about NATO-Finland, which would be reduced to cannon fodder and nuclear targets. But unfortunately joining NATO is pre-supposed, Finland is going to join NATO, and Finns must prepare themselves for hybrid war or even conventional war when Russia inevitably responds to this aggression. Avoiding the war is not the top priority anymore, the government and people are prepared to go to war for NATO, the same NATO that was supposed to be a deterrent for war! It is no mystery to any Finn why this is the case, historically Finland has been eager to shoot itself in the foot, if it just meant even a minor inconvenience to Russia. Making policy independent from the interests of the West for the interests of Finland itself has been unheard of for essentially all of Finland’s history. Finland is the “goody two shoes” of the EU, diligently castrating itself for the interests of globalists in Brussels and the US. For sure I will be claimed as a traitor for writing this article by Finnish “patriots” who hold their anti-Russia chauvinism at a higher regard than their own nation, but those people aren’t the ones I'm trying to reach, it is the real nationalists of Finland and every other nation that want what is best for their nation, and further emasculating our nation for the interests of the degenerates running the collective West is not by any means in the interest of any nation.

​

The possible outcomes for Finland regarding the future as I see it are the following;

1)NATO membership is not available in the first place for Finland, and the façade of possible membership is merely kept up as a political tool against Russia, as was the case with Ukraine. This is likely as Finland as a small vassal state for the West is not valuable enough to risk an unwanted confrontation with Russia. Whether a confrontation with Russia using Finland as cannon fodder and a warzone is the goal of the West is a separate subject. If Finland is not going to be let into NATO at all, this would surely have been talked about behind closed doors between the statesmen of Finland and NATO, it is possible that the Finnish parliament after “dutiful analysis of the situation” will come up with an alternative for NATO, such as individual guarantees from larger Western states, which would of course be absolutely worthless in reality. This outcome would certainly not be the worst of all outcomes.

2)Finland is to be used as bait by the West to provoke Russia into another war with the same circumstances as in Ukraine. This would be done to weaken Russia and increase pressure on the government if the war wasn’t popular. All of this naturally is to provoke regime change in Russia, which is the ultimate goal of Western imperialists. In this case Finland would begin the joining process into NATO but will not be given any guarantees for the joining process, during the joining process it would make sense for Russia to give Finland an ultimatum of either staying neutral, or risking war.

3)Finland is used as bait for Russia to attack like in the previous scenario, but instead the attack is used as a casus belli for a Western invasion into Russia. As this would start WW3, at this point it doesn’t seem too likely, but a desperate West might invoke a sunken cost fallacy concerning Russia and be very unpredictable.

4)The US is willing to let Finland into NATO and the joining process starts without Russian intervention. At this point it is possible for individual NATO-states to block Finland’s membership. Likely states for this would be Hungary and Turkey, both seek to retain their relationship with Russia and have nothing to gain from allowing Finland into NATO. A blocked NATO-application would leave Finland in a very vulnerable position where it has essentially severed any remaining relations with Russia, and has been rejected by NATO.

5)Finland is let into NATO despite all these obstacles. This would create permanent and never before seen military tension on the Finnish eastern border, and would most certainly make Finland the frontline for WW3 whenever it might happen. This obviously would mean the almost certain destruction of the Finnish nation in nuclear fire.

6)No changes are made into Finland’s NATO-policy and the status quo remains, not a very likely scenario but a preferable one. This would signify Finland’s neutrality (despite heavy connections to NATO) to Russia, and would alleviate tensions between the countries.

7)Finland and Sweden develop their defenses together more with the US independent of NATO. A very unlikely outcome, but has had some discussion and supporters in Finland and Sweden

Ironically and sadly, it seems that a Russian invasion in the near future is one of the “best” routes for Finland’s continued existence. A Russian invasion to put down the rapid dogs in the Finnish government would put an end to their ambitions of a NATO-aligned Finland, which would ultimately preserve the Finnish nation. Keep in mind that I say this as a man who would be sent to the frontlines in this scenario, so by no means do I wish for this, and it pains me to see this reality, but we cannot bury our heads from the reality, no matter how painful or bleak it may be. It still doesn’t have to come to this though, the Finnish people still can take their country and destiny into their own hands, and finally govern the land in the interests of Finns and Finland first in their minds.