Back

mit populistisch hochgejazzten Scheinproblemen ein immer weiter verschärftes Sanktions- & Gängelungssystem (wieder)eingeführt werden, das alle Armutsbetroffenen trifft und immer weiter stigmatisiert.

2.) Das ekelhafte Ausspielen von "arbeitender Bevölkerung" gegen angebl. faule "nicht Arbeitende", denen mal Beine gemacht werden müsse, verleugnet überdies die Tatsache, dass ein riesiger Anteil von Menschen in Grundsicherung gar nicht ohne Arbeit sind oder fröhlichem Nichtstun frönen, sondern

- von der eigenen Arbeit nicht leben können & aufstocken müssen
- noch zur Schule gehen (10,1%)
- an Weiterbildungen, "arbeitsmarktpolit. Maßnahmen" teilnehmen (10,5%)
- am Rande des Existenzminimums aufgerieben Angehörige pflegen, Carearbeit verrichten,... (7,7%)
etc.

3.) Die miese Ausspielerei von (Lohn)"arbeitender Bevölkerung" gegen "Arbeitslose" schadet BEIDEN - denn Lohnarbeitslosigkeit ereilt stinknormale Menschen bei Krankheit, Pflege Auftragsflauten oä nicht nur schneller, als es

das "Othering" Armutsbetroffener zum unter Faulheits-&Betrugsverdacht gestellten "Anderen" suggeriert:

Die Drohung mit Aussicht auf Sanktionen, Ächtung und Arbeitszwang bei immer mieseren Zumutbarkeitsregelungen nimmt auch Menschen IN Lohnarbeit mehr und mehr Verhandlungsspielraum für faire Löhne und Arbeitsbedingungen.

So treibt man auch Lohnarbeitende in Ausbeutung und Niedriglohnsektor - ein Armutszeugnis für eine angebl. "Arbeiterpartei".

4.) Und dieses alle Ethik und Fakten zum Thema in die Tonne tretende Getöse macht noch nicht mal wahlstrategisch Sinn:
Wer asoziale Mythen befeuert und Rechtspopulismus hinterherrennt, gewinnt Asozialen und Rechtspopulisten keine Wähler ab, sondern stärkt wieder&wieder ihre Narrative - und Wählerïnnen wählen dann, wie bereits x-fach in Wahlforschung, Studien, den vergangenen Wahlen aufgezeigt: das schwarzblaubraune Original.

@NaMi Question: Who votes for AfD?
Is it the same as in Finland, where ”petit bourgeoise” of small business, merchants and self-employed can claim that they are so much more hardworking than everyone else, voted for the hard right?
Is it the same people, who actually make more money than the average worker, but want to drive employment costs lower?
The same people who can be sold a anti-capitalist fear of big business taking their local business?
The same class who supported nazis?

@gimulnautti

Oh boy, yeah, more or less. "Who votes for AfD (and why)?" requires an entire long thread of its own. In a nutshell, the common denominators are pretty international across Western democracies:

There are several interesting factors, e.g.:
- clearly more men than women
- more ppl with lower degrees of formal education. (because they are more prone to simplistic pseudo-solutions & scapegoating. Or bc they are more rightfully disgruntled, as the AfD themselves would claim.)

@gimulnautti

As to the relationship between votes for the far right &economic status, the tired cliché that the poor(er) who are left behind vote far-right in order to "stick it to the globalist elites" is clearly untrue -as evidenced by far-right icons like Trump, Musk etc who certainly do not represent the downtrodden.
However, there IS a clear nexus between economics &the far right; it just works a little differently.

The "Mitte-Studie" 2022/3 (a yearly study by leading social researchers

@gimulnautti
produced for the social-democratic Friedrich Ebert-Stiftung) has really interesting findings on this:
https://www.fes.de/referat-demokratie-gesellschaft-und-innovation/gegen-rechtsextremismus/mitte-studie-2023

As they show, the highest far-right, anti-democr. & AfD-voting tendencies +approval of violence are amongst voters who are both "economically unsafe" AND believe in "market-conform" ideology -
defined by identification with "market-based" notions of society &success, individual responsibility, self-optimization, "pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps" etc.

@gimulnautti
The second highest tendencies towards right-wing extremist world views and approval of violence are amongst economically safe&secure voters who believe in such neolib socio-economic ideologies!

In short: It's not just poverty, economic instability that's the problem. The recipe for right-wing extremism & AfD-voting desaster is making people believe that they deserve better, that they should make it if only they work hard etc and then have a systemic crisis

@gimulnautti
where they become economically insecure...  and then externalize their failure to succeed upon "Others" (the allegedly lazy poor, the foreigners, etc.) while falling for perceived "strong-men".
See also the excellent book  "Gekränkte Freiheit" (on aspects of libertarian authoritarianism) for a very similar analysis:
https://www.suhrkamp.de/buch/gekraenkte-freiheit-t-9783518430712

Based on that, the political answer against growing right-wing extremism & violence is not just to work against economic injustice,

@gimulnautti
provide basic economic security and fair chances to all etc, but to stand for solidary notions of being & society, and stop brainwashing ppl with neolib crap about how systemic insecurity is allegedly due to "laziness", individually "deserved" etc.

Alas, our self-proclaimed "Mitte" parties from SPD social democrats to CDU "Christian" dem. conservatives do the exact opposite in their attempt to win ppl back from the far right:

@gimulnautti
a little bit of "betterment for the hard-working average Joe" here, a little bit of "but not for the lazies who don't want to work" there...  And then pretend to be super shocked by the inevitable result of feeding right into the heart of the problem: more votes for AfD at worst, CDU and even SPD (see original post above) becoming more & more indistinguishable from AfD at "best".

@gimulnautti

There'd be much more to say about the finer details of those studies, or about the ambivalence of the far-right between ethno-collectivism and libertarianism atm, but the answer is already far too long as it is so i'll end it here.