SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
afd
Western Capitalist Societies Have Rolled Out the Red Carpet for Fascism
Sadly, it seems that humanity never learns lessons from its dark past.
Sep 28, 2026
How do we explain the rise and normalization of fascism in Germany and the United States? How important are the upcoming midterm elections? And what may happen if the Democrats sweep the midterm elections? Can the Democratic Party offer a vision for the future beyond a return to the pre-Trump status quo? Political scientist, political economist, author, and journalist C. J. Polychroniou shares provocative thoughts on these questions in an interview with French-Greek independent journalist and writer Alexandra Boutri.
Alexandra Boutri: In a recent essay on German state elections, you hinted that Germany, once considered the economic engine of Europe, is now in the midst of a systemic crisis. What’s going on there? How did fascism become normalized again in Germany?
C. J. Polychroniou: Let me start by briefly addressing the point you made about Germany’s status as the powerhouse of Europe because economics is a big part of the story behind the meteoric rise of the fascist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. Germany’s second so-called Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle), which kicked off in the early years of the new millennium, was aided by the creation of a currency regime that was “made in Germany.” The euro not only created stability for the German economy due to lack of exchange fluctuations but allowed it to gain huge competitiveness against other members of the eurozone. German competitiveness increased overnight by nearly 20 percent, while competitiveness in other European countries declined. Germany’s euro partners absorbed over 40 percent of its exports. In the process, huge imbalances emerged within the eurozone as Germany built an enormous trade surplus while individual countries within the EU, particularly the southern European nations, run huge deficits and saw their debt levels explode.
The situation in the US is even more dramatic because the fascists are already in power...
It’s important to remember that not only was Germany running a budget deficit prior to the implementation of the euro regime but was derided as the sick man of Europe because of its consistently sluggish economy. Nonetheless, it wasn’t just the new currency regime that greatly contributed to Germany’s economic recovery and subsequent emergence as Europe’s powerhouse. The Social Democratic government of Gerhard Schröder (1998-2005) implemented a series of major labor and welfare reforms inspired by the philosophy of austerity and fiscal conservatism in order to intensify Germany’s export-oriented growth model after reunification.
In sum, the so-called German economic miracle depended on the promotion of neoliberal policies (wage suppression and putting an end to the social market economy) and reliance on an export-led growth model. The primary beneficiaries of this “economic miracle” were German industrialists and financiers. Net real wages in Germany remained stagnant, poverty increased, and domestic investment collapsed.
Enter the AfD. It was founded in 2013 by some conservative German academics, journalists, and politicians who were concerned with the direction of their country’s economy. They were against the euro and opposed the bailout of European indebted countries such as Greece. Many years earlier, four renegade professors (Wilhelm Hankel, Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider, Joachim Starbatty, and Wilhelm Nolling) had actually launched a legal challenge in Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court against the adoption of the euro. I spoke to professor Joachim Starbatty at the start of the euro debt crisis. His position was clear and straightforward. Rightly or wrongly, he felt that a monetary union could survive only if economic competitiveness among all member states moved in the same direction and if the different governments implemented sustainable fiscal policies.
The AfD started out as a eurosceptic party but began campaigning on an anti-immigration platform soon after its founding, mainly in reaction to then Chancellor Merkel’s decision to open Germany’s borders and welcome more than 1 million refugees and asylum seekers. Its leaders realized that there were a lot of disgruntled voters out there who felt that the establishment parties are incapable of addressing the country’s many interlocking crises and that scapegoating can be used to bring people together from different socioeconomic groups by creating a common enemy.
The AfD capitalizes on economic and cultural anxieties, just like Hitler did in the 1930s. As a new report by legal experts has found, the AfD is a very extreme political party, “working systematically to undermine Germany’s free democratic order.” And what should be of particular concern is that the success this party is enjoying so far is indeed comparable to the rise of the Nazis. True enough, the AfD is particularly strong in the former east Germany which still lags behind west Germany, but it has already emerged as the most popular party in the country. Hence, to continue speaking of a surge on the part of fascism in Germany is an understatement.
Now, Germany’s export-oriented growth model seems to have run its course. It’s facing mounting pressure from China’s own export power. Growth has been stagnant for the past several years. The slight increase in domestic gross product that the German economy experienced in the second quarter of 2026 cannot conceal the fact that German trade deficit with China continues to grow. To turn things around, shockingly enough, Chancellor Merz, who is the most unpopular chancellor in the country’s postwar history, has called on Germans to work longer hours, citing Greece, a country whose labor market is characterized by low wages while employers can enforce 13-hour work days, a model. As far as the small wage increases that have taken place over the last few years are concerned, they are “simply too low” to keep pace with rising costs.
The question about how fascism became normalized again is not difficult to answer. It became normalized again in Germany and throughout Europe in the same way that Trump normalized racism and fascist tendencies in the United States, namely by integrating extremist rhetoric and policies into mainstream political culture. Harsh, inhumane immigration policies have become laws while the line between security and surveillance is gone in today’s so-called democratic societies. Laws are now used not for the purpose of defending democracy and freedom of speech but in order to suppress dissent. Genocide has unfolded before our eyes, but opposition to it can result in penalties, institutional punishment, and arrests. Even universities, allegedly a bedrock for democracy, are violating “basic free speech, association, and assembly rights.”
Western capitalist polities have rolled out the red carpet for fascism. Indeed, it would seem that humanity never learns lessons from its dark past. The far right has gone from antisemitism (it supports Israel but remains antisemitic) to Islamophobia and there is a significant rise in xenophobia not just throughout Europe but all across the world. Meanwhile, the president of the most powerful nation in history threatens another country (Iran) with total annihilation. The West has entered again the age of monsters.
Alexandra Boutri: With the 2026 midterm elections in the US fast approaching, and which may be the most consequential in the history of the country, isn’t it the case that the United States is also experiencing massive systemic failures?
C. J. Polychroniou: No question about it. While there are striking differences between Germany and the United States on many levels, both countries face enormous economic challenges and real threats from domestic political forces with extreme, anti-democratic beliefs. On that note, I would say that the situation in the US is even more dramatic because the fascists are already in power, you have a mentally militarized society, and the system of checks and balances simply isn’t working. Formally, AfD’s leaders reject political violence to attain the party’s goals, while Trump has repeatedly stoked violence. But here I should add that the MAGA crowd is even more extremist than AfD’s supporters. In the meantime, wealth inequality in the United States has reached an all-time high, and the tech giants are building a dystopia.
Alexandra Boutri: What’s your own sense about the upcoming midterms? How important are they, and what will they mean?
C. J. Polychroniou: As far as midterm elections go, I think you are absolutely right when you stated earlier that they may be the most consequential in the history of the country. The president’s party usually loses House seats in midterm elections, so there is a good chance that the Democrats will control the chamber come November. There are several key races that will determine who controls the Senate, but the Democrats are clear favorites. However, it may all come down to independent voters. Also, I hope that Hispanics will turn their backs on the GOP. One of the things that Democrats and progressives in general in the US have failed to realize is how socially conservative the new immigrants that have come to the United States are. Unlike the huge waves of European immigrants that arrived in the United States between the late 1890s and 1950s and led to support for the Democratic Party because they carried with them progressive and even radical ideas about politics and society, the new immigrants that have been coming to the US since the 1980s (over 80% are from Latin America and Asia) are overwhelmingly conservative and religious.
But there is a deeper concern here about the midterm elections, which is that Trump will interfere by trying to deny people their voting rights, having federal officials seize ballots, and even declaring results void with false allegations of voter fraud. It is also conceivable that he may demand from Republicans that they refuse to swear in newly elected Democrats in the House of Representatives.
Alexandra Boutri: As far as I can see, the problem is that the leadership of the Democratic Party lacks courage and has no vision for the future. For the establishment Democrats, the perfect outcome would be a return to the pre-Trump status quo. Am I wrong in thinking that way?
C. J. Polychroniou: No, you are not wrong. The current leadership of the Democratic Party is simply hopeless. As was the previous one, and the one before that, and so on. And the left-wing of the party can only do so much. The Democrats need bold, courageous, visionary leadership that is willing to embrace a truly progressive socioeconomic agenda and reject militarism. What is quite disconcerting about a party that claims to fight on behalf of American workers is how shallow and inconsistent its policy agenda is when it comes to meaningful change.
The current leadership of the Democratic Party is simply hopeless.
The ruling Labour Party under the leadership of Andy Burnham has promised a “new direction” for Britain by adopting bold reforms on key areas that affect the well-being of its citizens. They range from changes to economic policy, improving public services, transferring power from Westminster to communities, and combating the threats of global warming. I don’t know if Burnham will be able to deliver and restore Labour’s fortunes, but the early signs are quite encouraging. The Democrats should move in a similar direction if Trumpism is to be defeated.
On that note, it is uplifting to see that the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst has launched Game Changers: Economic Policies for a Working America. The project is initiated and directed by PERI’s co-director Gerald Epstein and represents a bold intellectual undertaking for putting an end to the madness of free market fundamentalism by creating an alternative economic setting with “rules that first and foremost protect the well-being of American workers.”
Alexandra Boutri: You said above that this is the time of monsters. So, what is to be done?
C. J. Polychroniou: I said this is the age of monsters. “Now is the time of monsters” is a quote widely attributed to Italian Marxist intellectual Antonio Gramsci. The problem is that Gramsci never used those words in Prison Notebooks. What he actually wrote was “In this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.” Moreover, and this is even less known, the statement had nothing to do with the rise of fascism but, rather, with developments inside the Italian Communist Party!
What is to be done in an age of monsters? I will paraphrase Albert Camus and say that “in a world of conflict, in a world of victims and executioners,” it is the moral duty of thinking and decent people everywhere, irrespective of their political preferences and ideological affiliations, race, ethnicity, and national origin, “not to be on the side of the executioners.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Pretty Explicit White Nationalism’: Trump National Security Strategy Document Leaves Critics Aghast
One critic described the document as "a pretty explicit defense of using the state as a means of enforcing white supremacy."
Dec 05, 2025
The Trump administration on Thursday released its official National Security Strategy, and many critics noted that it was loaded with rhetoric frequently used by white nationalists.
Some of the most inflammatory rhetoric in the document is aimed at US-allied European countries that supposedly face "the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure" within the next 20 years.
In particular, the document accuses the European Union of enacting policies "that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence."
The document goes on to claim that "should present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less," while emphasizing that US policy is to help "Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation."
Jon Henley, Europe correspondent for the Guardian, noted in a Friday report that the document "appears to espouse the racist 'great replacement' conspiracy theory, saying several countries risk becoming 'majority non-European.'" Henley added that the document "underscores the Trump administration's clear alignment with Europe’s far-right nationalist parties, whose policies centre on attacking supposed EU overreach and excessive non-EU migration."
Scott Horton, legal affairs and national security contributor to Harper's and an adjunct professor at Columbia Law School, wrote on Bluesky that the document "reads like something written by Vladimir Putin," given its depiction of Europe as being "degenerate and... racially adulterated through the in-migration of dark-skinned people."
Progressive activist Max Berger argued that the document "contains some pretty explicit white nationalism." He pointed to the document's support for dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives as a way to restore "a culture of competence."
Berger also flagged a section in the document that named "ending mass migration" as the top US national security priority, which he described as "a pretty explicit defense of using the state as a means of enforcing white supremacy."
Edmund Luce, a columnist for the Financial Times, also took note of the administration's emphasis on "competence and merit" in the document. This is ironic, Luce continued, because "this administration personifies the opposites" of those traits.
Journalist Michael Weiss argued in a post on X that the document shows that it is now official US policy to promote and assist far-right parties in Europe.
"[US Vice President] JD Vance's intervention in Germany's election, on behalf of [far-right party Alternative für Deutschland], was not a one-off," he wrote. "It is now ingrained in the U.S. National Security Strategy... Europe is be treated as enemy terrain to be destabilized by America's enabling of far-right parties."
Keep ReadingShow Less
JD Vance, American Racism, and German Fascism
A sordid history to remember and the horrific prospects of a vice president's embrace of Germany's neo-Nazi party.
Feb 18, 2025
Vice President J.D. Vance’s embrace of Germany’s neo-Nazi party in a high profile Munich visit this past week sparked outrage and alarm across Europe. It was the latest example of a long history of U.S.-Nazi racism and dictatorship ties that should be a stark warning of what it portends for the U.S. as well.
Vance’s refusal to meet with German Chancellor Olof Scholz, instead holding a private meeting with the Alternative for Germany (AfD) leader, followed Elon Musk’s video appearance at a campaign kickoff for the AfD ahead of next Sunday’s German elections. It also coincided with escalation of the Musk-Trump administration’s gutting of federal programs and firing of workers, a key step for establishing authoritarian rule at home.
The rise of the AfD and President Donald Trump’s election were both animated by vitriolic, racist practices and ideology, a stark reminder of how the U.S. legacy of racist behavior and laws were a prime model for the ascent of Hitler and Nazi fascism. And how Hitler’s success inspired U.S. acolytes of Hitler like Charles Lindberg, Father Coughlin, and Henry Ford.
Just as Hitler utilized antisemitism, along with vilification of the left and traditional party elites to propel his dictatorial dreams, Trump has long employed speech and actions to animate his thirst for unchecked power. For Trump it went from launching his first campaign by branding Mexican immigrants as “rapists and murders,” to today’s demonization of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as a vehicle to rally support for his autocratic goals.
Unleashing Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on public agencies and staff accelerated the longtime far right libertarian goal and Project 2025 plan to privatize, deregulate and shrink federal government to nothing more than handouts to corporations and the super-rich and expanding military, policing and border control. Augmenting it with a DEI shroud enabled them to further a white surpremacist vision of purging workers of color from public service.
Trump and Musk seem intent on reversing every political, economic, multi-cultural democratic advance envisioned by the post-Civil War Reconstruction reforms that also were the foundation of subsequent legislative and cultural gains of the 1960s and ‘70s for racial, ethnic, gender and LBGTQ+, and disability rights.
‘It’s a coup’
That plan is just getting started, as illuminated by the Washington Post in a preview of the next phase, escalating evisceration of critical public health, safety net and environmental and consumer protection programs already underway. On February 11, Trump signed an updated executive order directing federal agency heads to prepare wholesale “reorganization plans,” commencing a “critical transformation” of “our system of Government itself.”
Even two veteran Republican budget experts, told Reuters the plan is “driven more by an ideological assault on federal agencies long hated by conservatives than a good-faith effort to save taxpayer dollars.” The goal, says Our Revolution more pointedly, is to “consolidate billionaire power and dismantle democracy as we know it. This is not efficiency—it's a coup."
The DEI demagogy, a focus of Trump’s 2024 campaign, drives Trump 2.0. Following the Potomac plane crash, White House press secretary made it explicit, “when you are flying on an airplane with your loved ones, do you pray that your plane lands safely, or do you pray that your pilot has a certain skin color?”
Building authoritarian power through fanning bigotry has a long backstory in the U.S., from the slave states’ power over the federal government and post-Civil War in the former Confederate states following the counter revolution against Reconstruction. It was also the cudgel used by Hitler, along with political violence, to attain power following his failed 1923 Beer Hall Putsch coup and then to secure his regime.
The U.S. blueprint for Hitler
As James Whitman writes in his book, Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law, Hitler praised the U.S. as “the one state” that had made progress for a racial order that has allowed it “to become the master of the American continent and … remain the master as long as he does not fall victim to racial pollution.” Hitler used antisemitic demagogy blaming Jews, especially, for Germany’s defeat of in World War I and its economic crisis, as a key lever to gain votes, leading to being handed the Chancellorship in 1933.
Nazi demagogy admired how Americans felt the need to exclude the “foreign body” of “strangers to the blood” of the ruling race, Whitman observes, an eerie prelude to Trump’s depiction of immigrants from South America, Asia and Africa “poisoning the blood of our country” that built upon year of similar racist rants.
Echoing Mein Kampf in the 1930s segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo asserted “one drop of Negro blood placed in the veins of the purest Caucasian destroys the inventive genius of his mind and palsies his creative faculty,” a racist trope Trump nearly a century later paraphrased to disparage the intellect of numerous Black leaders, including Vice President Kamala Harris.
Shortly after Hitler’s reign began, Germany adopted a law on the Revocation of Naturalization and the Withdrawal of German Citizenship for the “denaturalization and expulsion of Eastern European Jews who arrived after the First World War,” Whitman observes.
Nazi lawyer Otto Koellreutter called it, “a further necessary measure for maintaining the healthy racial cohesion of the Volk (German people),” another step influenced by U.S. as well as British Dominion laws that parallels Trump’s racist immigration goals and his effort to overturn the 14th Amendment right of birthright citizenship.
By 1934, as the Nazis were well on their way to sustaining their dictatorship they moved to codify persecution of German Jews. Leading Nazi lawyers began crafting the notorious 1935 Nuremberg Race Laws to prevent “any further penetration of Jewish blood into the body of the German Volk.” It banned intermarriages and sexual relations between Jews and other Germans. They cited anti-miscegenation laws ultimately adopted in 30 U.S. states, and not finally expunged until the 1967 Supreme Court Loving v Virginia ruling.
Jews were also barred from a broad swath of employment in governing, academia, and the legal world. “What they were worried about,” Whitman explained to journalist Bill Moyers, “was that Jews might take over Germany, so the Jews had to be kept out of government, out of the legal profession, and out of any other situation in which they might exercise what the Nazis always called influence.” It looks like a harbinger of Trump and Musk’s DEI goals.
The U.S. assumed the mantle of “the leadership of the white peoples” after World War I, wrote far-right German professor Wahrhold Drascher in The Supremacy of the White Race, in 1936, adding without the leadership of the U.S. “a conscious unity of the white race would never have emerged.” He termed the founding of the U.S. “the turning point” for the theory of the white supremacy.
What especially appealed to Nazi legal experts, Whitman concludes, was how readily traditional legal norms were overridden in the United States. “What commanded the respect of the Nazi lawyers," he said, "was an America where politics was comparatively unencumbered by law,” which the Nazis quickly replicated.
“While it is true that ordinary citizens were to be blindly obedient, Nazi officials were expected to take a different attitude,” writes Whitman. “Political leaders were enjoined to be loyal to the spirit of Hitler. Whatever you do, always ask: How would the Fuhrer act, in accordance with the image you have of him.”
Whitman could have envisioned how Vance, Musk, and Trump would endorse defying multiple adverse court rulings on DOGE “reorganization,” illegal firings and executive orders, best evidenced in Trump’s post quoting Napoleon: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”
What will actually “save the country” is spirited fight and resistance to the coup.
German Chancellor Scholz responded to Vance noting the U.S. helped overthrow Nazism. “‘Never again’ is the historical mission that Germany, as a free democracy, must and wants to continue to live up to day after day,” he said. “Never again fascism, never again racism, never again war of aggression.”
What is needed right now across the country, said Indivisble in a recent call to action, is "an unprecedented show of constituent power to hold Republicans accountable for their complicity in the Trump-Musk coup and demand that Democrats in Congress use every ounce of leverage and power they have to fight back.”Keep ReadingShow Less
Priest Defrocked Over Tribute to Musk Nazi Salute—But Billionaire Still Running DOGE
One insider opined that "Trump isn't about to turn his back on someone who wields immense influence and has written checks for hundreds of millions of dollars to his campaign."
Jan 30, 2025
The Anglican Catholic Church has removed a Michigan priest who made a gesture widely interpreted as a Nazi salute in solidarity with Elon Musk during an anti-abortion conference last week—but critics noted that the multibillionaire businessman is still employed as the head of Republican U.S. President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency.
Calvin Robinson, the former priest-in-charge at St. Paul's Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) in Grand Rapids, was defrocked on Wednesday, the church—which is not affiliated with Roman Catholicism—said in a statement published on its website.
"While we cannot say what was in Mr. Robinson's heart when he did this, his action appears to have been an attempt to curry favor with certain elements of the American political right by provoking its opposition," the church said. "Mr. Robinson had been warned that online trolling and other such actions (whether in service of the left or right) are incompatible with a priestly vocation and was told to desist. Clearly, he has not, and as such, his license in this church has been revoked. He is no longer serving as a priest in the ACC."
"We believe that those who mimic the Nazi salute, even as a joke or an attempt to troll their opponents, trivialize the horror of the Holocaust and diminish the sacrifice of those who fought against its perpetrators," ACC said. "Such actions are harmful, divisive, and contrary to the tenets of Christian charity."
Musk—who is the world's richest person—made what has been broadly viewed as the Nazi "Sieg Heil" salute twice during a Washington, D.C. celebration following Trump's January 20 inauguration. Musk, who denied the gesture had anything to do with Nazism, responded to the firestorm of controversy his motion ignited by saying, "The 'everyone is Hitler' attack is sooo tired."
Robinson
mimicked Musk's gesture during supportive comments at the National Pro-Life Summit on January 25.
My heart goes out to you.
Make America Pro-Life Again. 🇺🇸🫡 pic.twitter.com/5bG8Gyy5fH
— Calvin Robinson (@calvinrobinson) January 29, 2025
"For the record, in case it needs saying: I am not a Nazi," Robinson wrote on Facebook Wednesday in defense of his action, which he called "a joke" meant to make a "mockery of the hysterical 'liberals' who called Elon Musk a Nazi for quite clearly showing the audience his heart was with them."
"Context is key, but sometimes people ignore context to confirm their own prejudices," he added. "People see what they want to see."
ACC's decisive action stands in stark contrast with the response of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which bills itself as the world's "leading anti-hate organization," but dismissed Musk's motion as an "awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm."
Investors in Tesla—the electric carmaker Musk leads along with the social media platform X and SpaceX—are pressing the far-right businessman, who contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to Trump's campaign, for answers.
"How much time does Elon Musk devote to growing Tesla, solving product issues, and driving shareholder value vs. his public engagements with Trump, DOGE, and political activities?" one retail investor asked. "Do you believe he's providing Tesla the focus it needs?"
Last week, Musk made a surprise appearance at a rally for the far-right German political party Alternative for Germany (AfD), during which he urged supporters to "move beyond" the collective guilt felt by many Germans for starting World War II and perpetrating the Holocaust.
"It's good to be proud of German culture, German values, and not to lose that in some sort of multiculturalism that dilutes everything," Musk said.
Some observers questioned why Musk is still in charge of DOGE—and predicted his honeymoon with Trump will not last.
"Musk at some point is going to lose his luster," a source close to the Trump team told The Hill Thursday. "Because he's a little bit goofy; too many unforced errors."
However, Jordan Wood, a former Trump administration communications aide, told the outlet that "Trump isn't about to turn his back on someone who wields immense influence and has written checks for hundreds of millions of dollars to his campaign."
"Elon is firmly in the inner circle; he seems to be generally liked among the staff," Wood noted, adding that those inside the Trump administration opposed to Musk "are going to have a tough time dealing with that."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Elon Musk Craves Return of Fascism Across Europe
The world's richest person seeks a descent into deep political crisis so reactionary forces can prevail again—just as they did in the 1930s.
Jan 13, 2025
Elon Musk spent more than a quarter billion dollars to back Trump and other MAGA Republican candidates in last year's U.S. elections. He did so not simply because he has a lot to gain from Trump’s presidency, which he does, but also because of his own ideological proclivities.
Musk is a right-wing extremist and not content to limit his meddling to U.S. politics. In fact, he is clearly on a personal mission to advance the cause of the far right across the western world. Hence his foray into European politics.
Ahead of next month’s federal election in Germany, Musk took to his social platform X on December 20 to proclaim that “only the AfD can save Germany” while describing chancellor Olaf Scholz as an “incompetent fool,” urging him in turn to resign, and President Frank-Walter Steinmeier as an “anti-democratic tyrant.” He doubled down a few days later on his full-throated support for the far-right party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), in an op-ed for the prominent German newspaper Die Welt, calling it “the last spark of hope” for the country. He went on to say that AfD “can lead the country into a future where economic prosperity, cultural integrity and technological innovations are not just wishes, but reality.” Incidentally, Musk—like all good imperialist investors—feels that his business investment in Germany gives him the right to make incursions into the country’s political condition.
The surge of the far right and extreme nationalism on the continent have echoes of the 1930s. But Elon Musk is on the wrong side of history.
Not content to limit his meddling to German politics, Musk has tried to stir up division and hatred in British politics by targeting Prime Minister Keir Starmer and top officials. He has accused the government of “releasing convicted pedophiles” and sided with jailed far-right activist Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party though he has called for Farage to be replaced as leader because “he doesn’t have what it takes” to lead the party. Apparently, even Nigel Farage isn’t sufficiently far right enough for Musk.
Europe’s leaders have denounced Musk’s meddling and support for far-right movements, but can they stop him? Musk is using the social media platform to communicate directly with hundreds of millions, bypassing traditional media channels. The billionaire owner of X has more than 200 million followers. Spreading lies and misinformation is easy and fast. MIT researchers have found that fake news spread 10 times faster than real news on social media. And it will become even easier and faster to do so after Mark Zukerberg’s decision to cancel fact-checking on his social media platforms, a move that Elon Musk lost no time in applauding.
On Thursday, Jan. 9, Musk held a livestream chat on X with AfD leader Alice Weidel that lasted more than an hour. Musk’s purpose for holding this discussion was to show people that Weidel is a very reasonable leader even though her party has been put under observation by Germany’s domestic intelligence agency for suspected extremism. Indeed, a German court found in May 2024 that there is sufficient evidence to designate AfD as a potentially extremist party that poses a threat to democracy and the dignity of certain groups and should therefore be kept under surveillance.
Musk has rejected the claim that AfD is a right-wing extremist party, with the ridiculous argument that it can’t be so since its leader has a same-sex partner from Sri Lanka. The fact that AfD is engulfed in racist anti-immigrant hysteria and has vowed to restrict LGBTQ+ rights are no reasons for him to think that it is an extremist right-wing party. Weidel, in turn, used the opportunity afforded to her by Musk to argue that AfD shouldn’t be seen as a neo-Nazi party because it holds libertarian views on the economy (which is music to Musk’s ears as he is all for deregulation and lower taxes for corporations and the rich) and Hitler was a communist. Naturally, Musk agreed with Weidel in the outright lie that Hitler was indeed a communist. And also, with her equally ludicrous and utterly disgusting comment that left groups that support the Palestinian cause are Nazis and antisemites.
In an age of lies and misinformation, the notion that Hitler was a communist stands out as the high point of ideological perversion. Hitler hated communism and socialism and worked toward the annihilation of the communist movement not only in Germany but across Europe. Upon banning all existing political parties and making the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) the only political party in Germany, Hitler had thousands of communists and social democrats arrested and imprisoned. The Dachau concentration camp was constructed initially to hold the Nazis’ chief political enemies—the communists.
With Musk having become the first individual on X to have over 200 million followers, it is not difficult to imagine younger generations start believing that Hitler was a communist. Or in any other lies that Musk spreads, such as that the European Union (EU) tried to stop him from having a conversation with Alice Weidel.
In an age of lies and misinformation, the notion that Hitler was a communist stands out as the high point of ideological perversion.
Yet, it is Musk himself who is an enemy of free speech. He casts himself as a champion of free speech but has used his platform to target perceived enemies and to ban free speech. He has even sought to silence his critics with bogus lawsuits. Indeed, as the Guardian aptly put it, “Elon Musk has become the world’s biggest hypocrite on free speech.”
Thanks to Musk’s interference in German politics, there has been an enormous increase on Weidel’s average X posts in the last two weeks, which seems to suggest that Musk’s contributions could translate into more votes for AfD. Far-right parties are making significant strides across Europe. In 2024, the political pendulum in Europe swung even further right as far right parties made huge strides in France, Portugal, Belgium, and Austria while seven EU member states—Croatia, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands and Slovakia—already have hard-right parties in government.
As far as AfD is concerned, it won a German state election in 2024, making it the first far-right party to do so since 1945. However, Musk would like to see Germany’s far-right party victorious in the snap election set for Feb. 23 after the collapse of chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition government.
There can be no denying that Musk “is throwing grenades into Europe’s political mainstream.” The continent needs radical change. The EU has failed on many fronts because of the rule-by-bureaucrats in Brussels. It lacks a unifying vision and the promises of a “social Europe” has given way to neoliberal policies that have been at the core of the creeping ascent of far-right movements and parties in the European political landscape. The surge of the far right and extreme nationalism on the continent have echoes of the 1930s. But Elon Musk is on the wrong side of history. His plan is to see Europe’s descent into a deep political crisis so the reactionary forces can eventually take over—just like they did in the 1930s. The question is: Can he be stopped before it’s too late?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Beware Elon Musk and His Attempts to Steer the World Toward the Neo-Fascist Right
It will not be the first time in history that someone is seduced by the thrill of unconstrained power, although it may be the first time that so much of it is concentrated in one unelected megalomaniac.
Jan 07, 2025
Elon Musk repeatedly asserts, without evidence, that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer covered up the abuses of young girls by gangs comprised largely of British Pakistani men, in cases that date back to before 2010 when Starmer was head of Britain’s public prosecutions.
“Starmer was complicit in the RAPE OF BRITAIN when he was head of Crown Prosecution for six years,” Musk posted to the top of his account on Friday. “Starmer must go, and he must face charges for his complicity in the worst mass crime in the history of Britain.”
In fact, Starmer, who heads the Labour government, did not cover up abuses. Instead, he brought the first case against an Asian grooming gang and drafted new guidelines for how the Crown Prosecution Service should deal with cases of sexual exploitation of children, including the mandatory reporting of child sex offenses.
But Musk’s real power these days comes from his proximity to and presumed influence over Donald Trump, soon to be President of the United States.
Musk also calls Jess Phillips, the Labour government’s under secretary for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, a “rape genocide apologist” because she pushed back on calls for a national inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Oldham, a town near Manchester.
In fact, Phillips, who has long campaigned for women’s rights, has called for a local investigation by Oldham authorities rather than the central government. Women’s rights supporters say Musk’s labeling Phillips a “rape genocide apologist” is threatening her safety.
Yesterday, Starmer warned publicly that Musk’s baseless accusations “crossed a line,” adding that “once we lose the anchor that truth matters, in the robust debate that we must have, then we are on a very slippery slope.”
Musk’s Global Reach
Musk’s lies about the left-wing British government and his support for far-right groups are parts of an emerging pattern. Musk is also:
- Boosting the far-right party in Germany with neo-Nazi ties, known as Alternative for Germany (AfD), before elections early next month. Musk signaled his support for AfD in mid-December, writing in a post on X that “only the AfD can save Germany.” He also penned an op-ed in a German newspaper recently, describing the party as the “last spark of hope” for the country. Musk is planning an online “discussion” on X with the AfD’s leader and candidate for chancellor, Alice Weidel, amplifying the party’s neo-Nazi ideology.
- Attacking the Italian judiciary for curbing Italian Prime Giorgia Meloni’s hardline anti-asylum immigration policies. Musk has met regularly with Meloni, who has called him a friend, and appeared at a youth event for Meloni’s party.
- Urging support for Britain’s far-right MP Nigel Farage’s anti-immigration Reform U.K. Party. Musk says he might donate upward of 100 million pounds ($127 million) to Farage’s group.
- Demanding Britain “free Tommy Robinson,” the far-right founder of the English Defence League—an Islamophobic nationalist group—and anti-immigrant agitator who, Musk charges, is in jail for “telling the truth.” In fact, Robinson is in jail because he was found to have defamed a teenage Syrian refugee and then defied a British court order by repeating the false claims. (Robinson has been previously jailed for assault, mortgage fraud, and traveling on a false passport to the United States, where he has sought to establish ties with right-wing groups.)
- Allowing on X inflammatory lies of a kind that incited anti-immigrant riots in Britain last July, following the killing of three girls in a mass stabbing in the town of Southport. After Britain arrested more than 30 people, Musk condemned the government for what he called an attack on free speech.
- Calling Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau an “insufferable tool” over comments Trudeau made in support of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, and predicted he “won’t be in power for much longer.” (Yesterday, Trudeau announced he will resign.)
Where Musk Is Getting This Power
As the richest person in the world, politicians everywhere now recognize his capacity to pour money into their parties and political campaigns, as he did by investing a quarter of a billion dollars to get Trump elected.
He also owns X, formerly Twitter, which (as of December 2024) has 619 million monthly active users. He has manipulated X’s algorithm to boost his own posts, which now reach 210 million.
But Musk’s real power these days comes from his proximity to and presumed influence over Donald Trump, soon to be President of the United States.
Musk has hardly left Trump’s side since the election, meaning that Musks’s opinions (amplified by his social media platform) cannot be ignored by politicians around the world who are trying to decipher Trump’s opinions.
One prominent member of Germany’s center-left Social Democratic Party is asking that Germany determine “whether [Musk’s] repeated disrespect, defamation, and interference in the election campaign were also expressed in the name of the new U.S. government.”
This combination—the richest person in the world, owner and manipulator of the biggest political messaging platform in the world, with direct influence over Trump—puts Musk in the position of being able to move other nations toward the neo-fascist right.
Why Musk Is Doing This
Not for money. As it is, he has far more than any human can utilize.
Partly, it’s ideological. He calls himself a “free speech absolutist,” which puts him at odds with Europe’s and Canada’s aggressive responses to hate speech online. (Britain, Musk says, “is turning into a police state.”)
But the roots of Musk’s neo-fascism probably go deeper.
I am no psychoanalyst, but I imagine that as an immigrant from South Africa, Musk is especially triggered by poor people of color moving into white nations. His father smuggled raw emeralds and had them cut in Johannesburg.
Part of his shift to the radical right also comes from Musk’s transgender child. As Musk told conservative commentator Jordan Peterson, “I lost my son, essentially,” claiming she was “dead, killed by the woke mind virus. I vowed to destroy the woke mind virus after that.” (Musk’s daughter, Vivian Jenna Wilson, now 20, told NBC News that Musk was an absent father who was cruel to her as a child for being queer and feminine.)
On X, Musk continuously criticizes transgender rights, including medical treatments for trans-identifying minors, and the use of pronouns if they are different from what would be used at birth. He has promoted anti-trans content and called for arresting people who provide trans care to minors. Last July, Musk said he was pulling his businesses out of California to protest a new state law that bars schools from requiring that trans kids be outed to their parents. After Musk bought X, then known as Twitter, in 2022, he rolled back the app’s protections for trans people, including a ban on using birth names (known as “deadnames” for transgender people).
Perhaps the major reason for Musk’s recent effort to push other nations to the neo-fascist right is his newfound thirst for right-wing global politics. After effectively (at least in Musk’s mind) winning the presidency for Trump by spending more than $250 million and unleashing a maelstrom of pro-Trump and anti-Harris lies over X, he now seeks even more of an authoritarian rush.
It will not be the first time in history that someone is seduced by the thrill of unconstrained power, although it may be the first time that so much of it is concentrated in one unelected megalomaniac.
What Should Be Done About Musk?
For the time being, particularly under Trump, there is little that we in America can do to constrain Musk except by boycotting Tesla and X.
Canada and Britain and other European nations, meanwhile, should, at the very least:
- Enact laws and regulations to prohibit non-citizens (like Musk) from financing activities that could affect their elections.
- Maintain, if not strengthen, laws and rules against hate speech, and ensure that they are applied to social media companies, such as Musk’s X.
- Refuse to contract with Musk’s Space X and its Starlink satellite division, or with Musk’s other corporations (Tesla and the Boring Company).
- Disengage from any joint ventures or technology transfers involving Musk, including xAI, his artificial intelligence company.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Europe Is Unlikely to Replace Trump’s US as Ukraine’s Chief Backer
The money isn’t there, and centrist parties in France and Germany are struggling to fend off populist challenges of their own.
Dec 06, 2024
Two main lessons are to be drawn from the fall of Michel Barnier’s government in France.
The first is that talk of Europe massively rearming itself and substituting for the U.S. as the chief backer of Ukraine while maintaining existing levels of healthcare and social security is idiocy. The money is simply not there. The second is that the effort by “mainstream” establishments to exclude populist parties from office is doomed in the long run, and in the short run is a recipe for repeated political crisis and increasing paralysis of government.
Two countries are central to the European Union, the European economy, European defense, and any hope of European strategic autonomy: France and Germany. Within a month of each other, both have seen their governments collapse due to battles over how to reduce their growing budget deficits. In both cases, their fiscal woes have been drastically worsened by a combination of economic stagnation and pressure on welfare budgets with the new costs of rearmament and support for Ukraine.
Large parts of the European foreign and security establishments write and talk as if none of this were happening; as if in fact these establishments had been permanently appointed to their positions by Louis XIV and Frederick II, and given by those sovereigns an unlimited right to tax and conscript their subjects.
In both cases, fiscal crisis has fed into the decay of the mainstream political parties that alternated in power for generations—a phenomenon that is to be seen all over Europe (and in the U.S., insofar as President-elect Donald Trump represents a revolt against the Republican establishment). This decay is being fed by the growing backlash against dictation by the E.U. and NATO that is occurring across wide swathes of Europe.
In the French presidential elections of 2017 and 2022, President Emmanuel Macron defeated the Front National (now the Rassemblement National) of Marine Le Pen by essentially uniting the remnants of all the centrist parties in a grand coalition behind himself. The problem with such grand coalitions of the center however is that they leave opposition nowhere to go but the extremes of right and left.
In the case of France, economic stagnation and resistance to Macron’s free market and austerity measures led in June of this year to crushing defeat for his bloc in European parliamentary elections. Macron then called snap French parliamentary elections in the hope that fear of Le Pen and the radical left would terrify French voters back into support for him. The result however was that Le Pen won a plurality of the vote, and while electoral deals with the left gave Macron’s bloc a plurality of seats, they are heavily outnumbered by deputies on the right and left.
Macron then ditched his left-wing allies and stitched up an agreement whereby Le Pen would support a centrist-conservative government under Michel Barnier in return for concessions on immigration policy and other issues. Bizarrely however, this was combined with continued “lawfare” against the Rassemblement National, with the prosecution of Le Pen for allegedly diverting E.U. parliamentary funds to support her party’s deputies. This is something that looks rather like a technicality or peccadillo, given what we know of the past behavior of E.U. parliamentarians—but would mean that, if convicted, she would be barred from running for the presidency in 2027.
This of course gave Le Pen every incentive to bring down Barnier’s government in the hope that it will bring down Macron with it, and thereby lead to early presidential elections; and when Barnier’s austerity budget (pushed through by decree against parliamentary opposition) infuriated the left, Le Pen seized her chance. Given the string of defeats that Macron has now suffered (and remembering that the far greater Charles de Gaulle resigned in 1969 after a far lesser defeat), it would make sense for Macron to step down. This would most probably lead to a presidency of the Rassemblement National; but then again, this is also probable if presidential elections take place on schedule in 2027.
German politics are in certain respects tracking those of France, but some years behind. Not long ago one would have said a generation behind, but European political change is clearly speeding up. After the 2021 general elections, the decline in support for the Social Democratic party, and the rise of the right-wing populist Alternative fuer Deutchland (AfD) and the left-wing populist Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) forced the Social Democrats into an uneasy coalition with two deeply ideologically opposed partners, the Liberals (FDP) and the Greens.
As Germany’s economic position worsened, internal battles over the budget also worsened until the coalition eventually collapsed. Opinion polls indicate that the centrist conservative Christian Democrats will come first in elections due in February, but will be far short of an absolute majority. The result will be a grand coalition with the Social Democrats; but if that also falls short of an absolute majority, and the Liberals fail to pass the 5% threshold to enter the German parliament, then (assuming a continued determination to exclude AfD and BSW), the Greens will have to be included.
Not only will this replicate the internal weaknesses and divisions of the last coalition, but it will mean that if Germany’s economic woes continue and the coalition parties’ popularity slumps, AfD and BSW will be the only place for discontented voters to go. These parties, being newer, are not yet nearly as popular as their French equivalents. AfD still has to go much further in the process initiated by Le Pen in the Front National, of purging its more extreme elements; and of course there is the special German historical fear of the radical right. Nonetheless, there are good reasons to think that the future German trajectory will resemble that of France.
Meanwhile, large parts of the European foreign and security establishments write and talk as if none of this were happening; as if in fact these establishments had been permanently appointed to their positions by Louis XIV and Frederick II, and given by those sovereigns an unlimited right to tax and conscript their subjects.
Thus in an article this week for Foreign Affairs, Elie Tenenbaum of the French Institute of International Relations in Paris and a colleague declare that in response to Trump’s election and in order to block a peace deal disadvantageous to Ukraine and “impose conditions of its own,” Europe must “force its way to the negotiating table.” A European coalition force of “at least four to five multinational brigades” should be deployed to eastern Ukraine to guarantee against further Russian aggression. European combat air patrols could be deployed “while the war is still underway.” And “if Russia remains unyielding, Europe must bear the bulk of the financial assistance to support Ukraine in a protracted conflict.”
Where the money and the public support for such a program is to come from is nowhere indicated.
I don’t know an appropriate and printable French response to these daydreams, but the Kremlin may reply with an old Russian saying: “Oh sure—when crabs learn to whistle.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Europe’s Long Rightward Lurch Continues' as Germany's AfD Projected to Win
First time a far-right party has won an election in Germany since the 1930s Nazi-era
Sep 01, 2024
Germany's far-right party Alternative for Germany (AfD) is projected to win in Sunday's statewide elections in a political earthquake—the first time a far-right party has won an election in Germany since the 1930s Nazi-era.
According to exit polls, AfD, founded in 2013 with an anti-migration and eurosceptic platform, won the most votes in the eastern state of Thuringia and is tied for first in the state of Saxony.
Today's election results are seen as a barometer of public sentiment toward German Chancellor Olaf Scholz's coalition ahead of Germany's next national election in a little over a year.
"This is a historic success for us," said national co-leader of the AfD Alice Weidel.
The Guardian reports:
"The anti-migration, anti-Islam AfD spent the last week of its campaign hammering home the message that the government is “failing” its citizens while harnessing shock and outrage over the deadly mass stabbing in the western city of Solingen allegedly by a Syrian rejected asylum seeker."
"The party, whose Saxony and Thuringia chapters security authorities have classed as rightwing extremist, could come out on top in both regions, as well as in Brandenburg, the rural state surrounding Berlin which will vote on 22 September, polls show."
Keep ReadingShow Less
EU Elections Show Why the Left Can't Win by Running Rightward
The left can take on both the center and the right by presenting a unified front, energizing new voters, and resisting the temptation to soften their positions.
Jun 21, 2024
The recent European Parliamentary elections went poorly for the region’s leftist parties, to say the least.
All across the continent, socialist, worker, and environmentalist parties—many of which had risen from the ashes of the Eurozone crisis—lost ground as far-right authoritarian parties picked up new support.
The Greens, primary architects of the European Union’s ambitious Green Deal, lost 19 seats of the 70 they had secured in a triumphant 2019 election. And while the Left coalition in parliament actually gained two seats to control 39 of the 720 available, the country-by-country results paint a darker picture.
The left has historically had success mobilizing those that are frustrated with the political system—and they should be unwilling to cede those potential voters to the far right.
In my native Spain, Podemos only managed a meager 3.3% of the vote, down from over 10% at their apex in 2019. Syriza, which briefly turned Greece into an epicenter of the European left, only pulled in 14.7% support, a far cry from their first place finish at nearly 24% in 2014.
And in France, Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National party beat the field so badly that President Emanuel Macron called snap parliamentary elections.
The overall results of the European Parliamentary elections—where millions of citizens across the European Union’s 27 member states voted to fill one of the bloc’s three legislative bodies—actually went slightly better than some observers feared. The moderate coalition of the conservative European People’s Party, the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, and the weakened liberal Renew Europe party looks poised to maintain leadership, although the far right’s influence over the body undoubtedly grew.
The two far-right groups in parliament—Giorgia Meloni’s European Conservatives and Reformists Party and Marine Le Pen’s more eurosceptic Identity and Democracy party—gained a combined 16 seats. Although an alliance is not on the horizon as of now with the two parties differing over the role of the E.U., together their bloc would nearly match the center left coalition.
And that’s not counting Alternative for Germany (AfD) which, despite being kicked out of Le Pen’s coalition after a leader suggested that Nazi SS officers were not necessarily criminals, placed second in Germany ahead of Prime Minister Olaf Scholz’s center-left Social Democrats.
After a setback of this magnitude, a period of reflection and restrategizing will no doubt take place. But as they grapple with a rising far right, the last thing Europe’s leftist parties should do is shift to the right themselves.
How can leftists in Europe beat back the rise of the anti-immigrant, ethnonationalist right and wrest power from centrist parties that are already pledging to weaken climate commitments? Present a unified front, energize new voters, and resist the temptation to soften their positions.
Presenting a United Front
The story of the left in Europe over the past decade is one headlined by infighting and fragmentation.
Spain’s Podemos, the left-wing faction borne out of the anti-austerity “15-M protests” starting in 2011, has faced several fractures since performing well enough to form part of the ruling coalition. The split off of Más Madrid, the marriage and subsequent divorce from Izquierda Unida, and the formation of the new progressive coalition Sumar have all resulted in Spanish voters not having a clear leftist option at the ballot.
In Germany, former parliamentary co-speaker and representative from the leftist Die Linke party Sahra Wagenknecht broke away to launch her own party with a more nationalist-populist appeal. That left Die Linke scrambling to survive and opened the door for the AfD to be one of the only viable options for voters outside of the political mainstream.
People can still be motivated to participate in politics when presented with compelling reasons.
There are often legitimate disagreements between leftist parties. But working through those without breaking off into separate factions will almost certainly put the left in a stronger position.
France provides a compelling example for that strategy. Following Macron’s call for snap elections, the country’s Socialists, Greens, Communists, and Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s progressive La France Insoumise party have come together to form the Nouveau Front Populaire, a coalition that despite internal differences has a common program.
Early returns on that joint bid are promising—although Le Pen’s party is polling in first place on around 31%, the new front is only a few percentage points behind. Macron’s Renaissance party is polling a distant 10 points behind.
The French case also shows that despite poor turnout in the European elections—roughly 50% of the over 400 million eligible voters in the continent cast ballots—people can still be motivated to participate in politics when presented with compelling reasons. Over a quarter million people—or closer to 700,000, according to the labor unions—flooded the streets of France after the elections to make their voices heard against the looming threat of the right.
As Sophie Binet, leader of the left-wing CGT union which helped lead the protests, said, “It’s our responsibility to build the popular wave that will block the far right.”
Sticking to Principles
The left has historically had success mobilizing those that are frustrated with the political system—and they should be unwilling to cede those potential voters to the far right. But neither can Europe’s leftist parties fall into the trap of shifting right themselves to steal a handful of votes from other parties.
As Manon Aubry, the co-chair of the Left group in the European Parliament, told Jacobin, “We spent too much time trying to protect ourselves from the reactionary agenda. We should also be offensive.”
One issue that Aubry suggests leftists could make a bigger wedge out of? Reining in out of control wealth concentration. A “tax the rich” agenda, she explained in the same interview, can inspire “most of the people who suffer from the increase of prices: The superrich have never been so rich, this is time to say stop to that.”
Instead of accommodating the right, Europe’s leftist parties should take their largely disappointing results this month as an opportunity to refocus on the core issues that matter to the working class.
To the contrary, shifting to the right in the face of growing authoritarianism can actually end up boosting that movement.
In a study published in 2022, researchers found that accommodating the far right on an issue like immigration—the unifying enemy of Europe’s right—does nothing to tamper its rise and can even help it grow. “By legitimizing a framing that is associated with the radical right, mainstream politicians can end up contributing to its success,” the researchers wrote in The Guardian.
Even if triangulating could work in the short term, would it be worth it? Seeing as the European Parliament’s center right party, emboldened by the newly more conservative makeup of the body, has already pledged to do away with a key pillar of the European Green Deal—banning the sale of combustion engines starting in 2035—the answer seems to be no.
There are several cases around Europe which show that sticking to positions can pay off electorally.
Take a look at Denmark, where the Social Democrats led by current prime minister Mette Frederiksen have adopted increasingly restrictive immigration policies in the decade since the far-right Danish People’s Party burst onto the scene. They finished behind the first-place Socialist People’s Party in this month’s elections.
France again shows this dynamic of centrist parties tightening their stances on immigration yet failing to break voters away from the far right—the showing of Macron’s Renaissance party was more than doubled up by Le Pen’s party despite Macron signing an immigration bill almost copied from her.
One of the biggest surprises of the election came in Finland, where the socialist Left Alliance pulled in 17.3% of the vote running on a platform that party leader Li Andersson described as combining “ambitious environmental and climate policy with the traditional themes of the Left: workers’ rights, investment in welfare services, equal distribution of income.”
The electoral gains of the Workers Party of Belgium and Austrian Communist Party in this election are further proof of the value of focusing on core working-class issues.
There’s Nothing Inevitable About the Far Right
While the rise of the authoritarian right in Europe has been alarming, it is by no means guaranteed. But if the centrist coalition that has held down leadership of the bloc for decades keeps shifting rightward on key issues like immigration and climate, it risks losing—or else helping the far right achieve its goals without even having to win itself.
Instead of accommodating the right, Europe’s leftist parties should take their largely disappointing results this month as an opportunity to refocus on the core issues that matter to the working class. By doubling down on principles and putting aside minor differences to present a unified front, the left can provide a tangible, substantively different answer to the rise of fascism on the continent.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Thousands March in Brussels Against Far-Right Gains in EU Elections
"It's important to show that we're in solidarity with everyone, whatever their nationality, whatever they earn, whatever they do," said a member of the Anti-Fascist Coordination of Belgium.
Jun 17, 2024
Thousands of people came together in Brussels on Sunday to march against the far-right parties' recent gains in the European Union elections—the second such protest in the Belgian capital since the results were announced earlier this month.
Sunday's march was organized by the Anti-Fascist Coordination of Belgium. The Brussels Times reported that "some 20 social movements and organizations are part of the CAB, including Young FGTB, Ades network, the Anti-Fascist Front of Liège, MOC Brussels, ASBL Garance, Ecolo J, and Mrax."
The organizers aimed to offer a "popular response and a contrasting social agenda" to the E.U.'s far-right movement, which they said "exacerbates social degradation" and promotes "absolutely disastrous policies" targeting democratic rights, the LGTBQ+ community, migrants, women, and workers.
"It will never be the far right that calls for taxing the richest, increasing the number of social housing, or implementing an ecological transition rooted in a logic of social justice, which is necessary for our common future."
"The far right will never demand higher wages for all," the organizers said. "It will never be the far right that calls for taxing the richest, increasing the number of social housing, or implementing an ecological transition rooted in a logic of social justice, which is necessary for our common future."
CAB member Sixtine Van Outryve told Euronews that "this march is important today to show a message of hope in the face of the messages of despair that the far right wants to bring us."
"It's important to show that we're in solidarity with everyone, whatever their nationality, whatever they earn, whatever they do," she said. "We stand together and we want a society that doesn't divide us. A society that doesn't exclude, a society that isn't racist or sexist."
"Many of us were shocked by the election results, showing far-right breakthroughs at the European level," Van Outryve added, expressing concern about the "alarming" normalization of far-right discourse.
The right-wing surge in the 27-member bloc's elections was widely anticipated, as key figures from across the continent and beyond collectively campaigned against migrants, feminism, socialism, LGBTQ+ rights, and the United Nations.
Parties that did well in the E.U. contests included Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's Brothers of Italy, Germany's Alternative für Deutschland, and Marine le Pen's National Rally in France, where President Emmanuel Macron responded to the results by calling snap national elections scheduled for June 30 and July 7.
As The Guardian reported earlier this month, "A surge in support for far-right parties in France, Germany, and Austria was tempered by strong support for centrist and left-wing groups in other countries."
The mixed results mean Ursula von der Leyen—who is tied to Germany's center-right Christian Democratic Union and the European People's Party—is expected to secure a second five-year term as president of the European Commission.
The Sunday march preceded a Monday evening meeting for heads of state and government to begin discussing who will fill that role and other top E.U. posts. In addition to the commission spot, The Guardian noted, "leaders will also decide on successors to Charles Michel, the president of the European Council, and Josep Borrell, the E.U.'s top diplomat."
"Consensus is also firming around Portugal's Socialist former Prime Minister António Costa to take over from Michel in chairing E.U. Council meetings," according to the British newspaper. "Estonia's prime minister, Kaja Kallas, is a favorite to take over from Borrell."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy