Main issue i see is the hard wired indoctrination of center-right to right-wing talking points which are beeing blasted through every media channel for decades. Most people share the very same issues but for some reason the conclusion for a lot of them is to kick downwards(edit:/on their peers) instead strengthening the economical class their part of.
Especially in the past i didnt share the same opinions as Die Linke when it eg came to foreign policy. But it still was the only party which actually wanted to do or did something for me and my class.
Well fingers crossed they figure out a way to win back working-class germans. But tbh i’m really pessimistic when it comes to that sadly.
If only ot werent for their anti EU, anti nato (or eu military alliance), and pro russia stance
Luckily it has gotten a lot better once moat weirdos left with the formation of the BSW. But yes, the Greens are still better when it comes to foreign policy.
With the openly anti nato and pro russia stance yeah. But its still heavily present. Otherwise they wouldnt vote “no” to sending weapons to ukraine.
Its such a shame Robert Habeck quit politics. Understandable but shame. If he would have come chancellor, i am fully confident, germany and EU would indefenetly be in a better position
AFAIK their stance is to use sanctions first. I agree that there are still too many “pro russia” (or at least “russia-naive”) voices in this party, but I think it is an interesting question: why don’t we sanction everything that’s possible?
The answer is of course money. But it’s not (necessarily) a sign of being “pro russia” if you’d rather sacrifice some economical growth than people’s lifes.
Plus: their federal chairman Jan van Aken said sanctions would have more impact if they come all at once. Russia’s economic system could (somewhat) adjust step by step to the individual sanctions. Harsh sanctions from the beginning might have been a shock to their system from which it could not have (so easily) recovered, That sounds rather plausible to me.
Sanctions alone won’t stop a planned armed invasion by a well equipped aggressor with a large arms stockpile. All this big talk about more sanctions having more impact, while at the same time denying military aid in the name of “peace” is really just helping the Aggressor while pretending not to, because sanctions, even when implemented correctly, will take time to have an impact, and won’t affect existing stockpiles.
Without weapons delivered by the West, Ukraine likely wouldn’t exist anymore, because they didn’t have the massive cold war era stockpiles Russia can still tap into. Neither do they have the production capacity to keep up with their demand, even though they have created some by now.
If the West had given more military aid from the start, The attack could possibly have been stopped in its tracks, or even thrown back to where it came from. But unfortunately, the "peace"mongers prevailed and prevented giving Ukraine the proper means means to hit the Russian supply chains right away, in the name of “preventing escalation”. Long ranged weapons have only been delivered once Ukraine had built and used some of their own.
It is not “peace” if you give in to an imperialist aggressor. Even if the war ends after successful conquest.
Oversimplification, but I get the gist.
(if you search for die Linke and EU, or die Linke and russia you can actually find their official stance on those topics, which is exactly the opposite of what you claimed. Their stance on nato is also more nuanced as they argue for a complete different type of security architecture - no matter how realistic that is).
oversimplification
Do you want me to write out every member of DIE LINKE’ opinion on these topics or what do you expect?
And no their stance on nato isnt that nuanced, they advocate for germany to leave NATO, now its less public talking point but still strong notion in the party.
When it comes to russia: they have always been for “negotiations” with russia and against sending weapons to ukraine so they can defend themself from the genocidists. Be it from foolish naivety or active pro russia stance but this position can not be accepted!
Yea, I pretty much expect you to clearly separate between “die Linke” as party with an official program and spokesperson and party members.
Otherwise we will discuss opinions and hearsay instead of official stances, which were criticized.
Edit: and just to be clear, I don’t share their viewpoints.
For me, what a party stands for is represented by their leader and their members.
For example my party: VOLT We arent neo liberal. Not at all, us members hated who the party put out there for germanys federal election. But just like her there is a small loud neo liberal some even AI-Bros group in the party and i hope for all there is, they dont grow. Europe needs an united EU federalist movement with eye on the common people not the rich.
But just like with DIE LINKE or GRÜNE there are the social akwards, the nut cases, and the traitors to the ideals… I only didnt join the left because their ukrane and EU stance…
I hope both VOLT and DIE LINKE sorts those people out and a red green purple alliance in the german parliaments can be forged (or red violet grey aka humanists :) )
They don’t have a pro-russia stance.
Also, one must distinguish between soft and hard euroscepticism. Being against the fiscal-conservative monstrosity that the EU has become is not the same as being against the idea of Europe per se.
They don’t have a pro-russia stance.
They do have a pro Russian stance with their insistence on “peace talks” and more sanctions instead of military aid in the Ukraine conflict.
Because negotiations by Russia are still in bad faith and for show only, all while still creating facts on the ground in Ukraine using military force, in part even against civilian targets.
They have a naive stance towards Russia. Also wanting to not send weapons to Ukraine which is defending itself can be easily understood as being a tool for Russia. You dont go to someone who is being beaten up and tell them to negotiate with their attacker. You either step into to assist the victim or you give the victim a means to defend themself against the attacker.
Now be fair… they are not only fighting against EU or NATO but also against every other party, organisation and most of the time against that evil traitor sitting right beside them but daring to only 99.9% agree with their ideology.
I’m not familiar with their anti EU stand. The recent events have showed us that Nato is a cashcow for the US and also a big lever for the US to blackmail all of the other countries. Furthermore, Mark Rutte is a US puppet and a bootlicker. Concerning Russia, they wanted to work with diplomacy and not by sending weapons for more people to be killed.
they wanted to work with diplomacy and not by sending weapons for more people to be killed.
Only Diplomacy, and no military aid, to stop an imperialist aggressor who is “negotiating” in bad faith while continuously attacking both military and civilian targets with the goal of conquest, killing combatants and noncombatants alike. This will surely prevent people from getting killed. On the imperialist aggressor’s side. So they can do more killing.
Removed by mod
What the left needs to learn, in my mind, is being angrier. The AFD has successfully whipped their supporters into a frenzy with the constant fear-mongering. And there are enough topics to be legitimately angry about. You need to mobilize your own and disillusioned voters by being passionate.
I would use the word “indignant” rather than “angry” to signal constructive anger, that is not about venting steam but about changing structures.
The working class is always a low-hanging fruit for the far-right rhetoric. That is why you need an “aggressive” democracy to keep the fash in their place. If you don’t, the rate of expansion for fascist ideas is faster than for socialist ideas, because the first is regressive and the latter progressive. Any democracy that is not actively fighting fascism is doomed to destroy itself. This is how we got here. AGAIN.
That is a problematic advice, as “the left” (whatever that means) already gets framed as unhinged, delusional and radical.
I mean “the left” as in left parties, specifically the faces of those parties. And the BILD will call everything left of CDU unhinged.
Yea, imagine the outcome. I mean: our chancellor already called people basically “leftist, deranged lunatic” wirhout any consequences (“Linke Spinner, die nicht alle Tassen im Schrank haben”).
Thereby he set the tone for the campaign and further communication.
I don’t see the problem. You are not trying to convince CDU voters to vote for Die Linke, you are trying to reach your own base and energise voters that may agree with you but see no point in voting. If anything, having Merz say that about you is positive. If Merz has no problem with you, you are on the wrong side of politics.
Nonvoters are at most 50%. With equal distribution, that only allows to double the votes. Die Linke has to gain much more to be able to govern. Almost anybody can be won over with the right argument because they are all proletarians.
This is called “watching as the Overton window moves” in real time.
WTF happened for “The Left” to have to “win back” the working class? Are post-post-modern enough already?
Bring back anarchosyndicalism ASAP.
Dogmatism is why anarchists and tankies are (luckily) only small groups in Germany. People constantly engaged in book clubs, circlejerks and detachment from the plight of actual working class people is why certain left groups are not winning people over.
Die Linke actually did a decent job recently in regards to pragmatism and I wish them and the Greens further growth.
The honest answer is that they never had them. “The Left” is the remnants of the former East German Communist party and the left wing of the social democrat SPD, who left the party due to them becoming more neoliberal in the early 2000s.
Other then that the main issue is that the traditional working class is gone in developed countries. Low skilled manufacturing jobs were outsourced to third world countries decades ago. So what remains is a highly skilled work force, which thanks to the unions earns decent money, making them clearly middle class. The lower class is mainly made up of service workers in rich countries like Germany. At the same time a lot of the left is made up of the massively grown academic middle class. In Germany the biggest group of that kind are the Greens, but other parties have a lot of those members as well.
So you end up with a working class, which cares less about progressive issues, while left is made up of a bunch of academics and the actual lower class ends up without much of a voice.
the traditional working class is gone in developed countries
I understand that, but there is a kind of modern-day proletariat. Super market cashiers are working class in that sense.
At the same time a lot of the left is made up of the massively grown academic middle class.
I was about to reach to that. The contradiction now might be more about being “educated professional class” versus “non-educated workforce, specialized laborers etc” (let alone gender). And not other distinctions that might have been meaningful in the past, since you mentioned already that people don’t work in factories as much as they did before.
These are more meaningful for explaining politics, but the truth is the vast majority of people wants living wages, social welfare and public healthcare. Americans are heavily brainwashed against these ideas, and perhaps some neoliberal Europeans as well.
The main difference in class, is that factory workers and also miners built up strong unions. Most service jobs, be they educated or not, do not have those. Hence it is much harder to base a party around them.
These are more meaningful for explaining politics, but the truth is the vast majority of people wants living wages, social welfare and public healthcare. Americans are heavily brainwashed against these ideas, and perhaps some neoliberal Europeans as well.
This article is about Germany and there are no parties, which fundamentally oppose social welfare and public healthcare. They want less of them, but not completely destroy them. There are more discussions about the minimum wage being higher, but even that is at 13.90€($16 right now).
Being for them makes you mostly a centrists. The more left leaning parties go for stuff like universal basic income, massive government built housing projects and so forth.
Modern academic leftism happened. Turns out the working class doesn’t give a shit about the things some spoiled rich people’s kids dream up as pressing societal problems while cosplaying proletariat in cloud cuckoo land, because they do have enough actual problems in real life.
I consider this an anti-intellectualist take. I don’t agree this is the root cause.
There is professionalization of the sciences in the context of capitalism, and other forces driving academic endeavours. Including military funding for example. But being educated means also understand the principles of constitutional democracy. This is the main reason anti-intellectualism is the breeding ground for authoritarianism, the very reason this thread exists.
Oh yes, this patronising talk is a big part of why the Left is so popular. Big talk from the high ivory tower, dismissing the life reality of the majority of the working class, and calling them stupid, or anti-intellectual because of a lower formal education.
You know what the working class already does have all day every day, even without that kind of self proclaimed working class movement? Being talked to, and about, condescendingly, and being told what’s best for them by some (quite often actually rather stupid) posh piece of shit claiming to be more intelligent because of some piece of paper, who lives in a different world, and doesn’t give a shit about their life reality.
The funniest part of the oh so intellectual academic left’s fight for the working class is, that with all their deep philosophical understanding of all matters working class, they always keep missing how their talk and pamphlets tend to be in a language the working class struggles to understand. If you need a dictionary to understand a relatively simple political message because it’s full of words only known to the denizens of a social sciences faculty at an institution of higher learning, and, on top of that, have to wrap your head around whatever craziness the current fashion (that changes every other week) of “inclusive” language is sprouting, to even understand anything at all, there is no surprise that the oh so important message doesn’t reach the masses.
