According to some, and rather predictably, it's the ubiquitous “far-right” which has increased its vote-share in Germany recently. In parallel with this, Chancellor Angela Merkel suffered a serious defeat in her own home state.
Polls in the Mecklenburg Western-Pomerania region have shown that Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) took second place to the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. (The “Christian” in “Christian Democratic Union” is by now - after over 70 years - a mere nominal description.)
The AfD got 22% of the votes; and that means that it now has seats in 11 regional parliaments.
The obvious result of all this is that it is unlikely that Merkel will win Germany's general election next year.
The interesting thing is, though, that despite all this gush about “the far Right”, many supporters of AfD have moved over from the traditional German parties, including the 23,000 from Merkel's very own CDU! Having said that, there are still many supporters of Merkel who won't go down without some kind of fight.
AfD sees itself as an “alternative” party – and one can see why. It's nationalist, populist and anti-mass migration.
The AfD has been classed as both “far-Right” and “hardline”, yet it would be difficult (in a manner of speaking) not to be hardline (or even far Right) after your own country's political/economic elite has imported one million immigrants and refugees in a single year. (With the resultant Cologne mass sexual-abuse scandal and so much else as a result.)
The British Labour Party similarly imported up to five million immigrants between 2000 and 2010. (Note: lowest estimate, 3.5 million. Highest estimate, 6.5 million.) What did they think the consequences of this would be? A huge national party of diversity – all smiles and unbounded love?
As I said, Angela Merkel imported one million immigrations in just a single year. Likewise, what did she expect – a national tea dance of community cohesion? In addition, because of the disastrous mass immigration policy of Merkel, even some socialists have suggested a points-based system (which the UK government has also just considered, if in a half-hearted way).
Thus it's unsurprising to hear Merkel's view on this matter. She said:
“We took nothing away from people here. We are still achieving our big goal of maintaining and improving the quality of life in Germany.”
She also said:
“We did not reduce benefits for anyone in Germany as a result of the aid for refugees. In fact, we actually saw social improvements in some areas.”
This is pure Marxist “economism”. Even if it's true that Germany has an endless pot of gold for both refugees and native Germans, she conspicuously ignores the Cologne mass-abuse case, Islamic terrorism, the support for ISIS in German cities, Germany's many Muslim ghettoes, etc. Again, it's much easier to rely on Marxist economism than it is to face the cultural clashes (between Muslims and non-Muslims, for example) which often result in violence and sometimes death.
(Most Marxists/Leftists will tell you that they've moved beyond economism into, for example, Gramscianism and the realms of “superstructure”. However, when the political need arises, or when there's a pressing cause to fight for, economism creeps back in again.)
On the other hand, economics always has some impact on voting-patterns – and that's obviously so. It's just that anyone – no matter what class – can be affronted by Islamic supremacism and mass immigration. Or as Frauke Petry (of the AfD) put it:
“Angela Merkel defeats herself. Merkel and the SPD deceive the citizens, whether it be on the financial crisis or the migrant crisis. They are destroying this country and that’s why people are voting for AfD.”
One newspaper stressed the poverty of the Mecklenburg Western-Pomerania area (where the AfD did well) and in doing so also tapped into the Marxists' seemingly necessary link between being poor/unemployed and voting for fascists. Needless to say, Marxist theory, traditionally, has also emphasised the fascist/Nazi voting habits of both the “bourgeoisie” and the “petite-bourgeoisie”. In addition, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKip) is also said to appeal primarily to “small businessmen” and their “bigotry towards immigrants”.
Yes, Marxists love to generalise and they do so through the prism of theory. (Non-Marxists often unknowingly adopt Marxist theories to analyse current political and economic situations and thus end up at various philosophical and political dead-ends.)
One thing we can happily accept is that the move to the Right has indeed been a part-response to Germany's open-door policy. This, however, has nothing to do with class; save in the obvious sense that it's the case that poorer whites often live closer to immigrant ghettoes than the better off – certainly closely to them than Europe's political elites.
It's almost as if members of the Left (not only the Revolutionary Left) have deliberately fuelled the political fires (e.g., by massively increasing immigration, Islamisation, etc.) in order to bring about what they call a “revolutionary situation”. Though whenever and wherever you bring about a revolutionary situation which will benefit the Far Left, it will just as likely benefit the Far Right too – perhaps more so.
As for the term “far Right”, perhaps we should embrace it! If all it takes to be designated “far Right” is to be against mass unvetted immigration and the Islamisation of Europe and the United States, then so be it. However, if the term “far Right” is simply a synonym for “fascist” or “Nazi”, then that's a different matter entirely. In the end the terms don't matter. It's what you believe that matters.
Finally, Hans-Herman Tiedje (a former policy adviser to Helmut Kohl and fiend of Merkel), expressed the problem perfectly when he said the following:
“The good people of this world will maybe give [Merkel] the Nobel Peace Prize – but domestically her politics are devastating.”