While Wagenknecht is a member of a party called "The Left", her political views are identical with far-right views. If she founds a new party, then I wouldn't consider it a party "on the far left".

Wagenknecht is anything but far-right. She has no far-right views, she is just very clever in appealing to the "rightish" anti-mainstream protest voters.

That's because the term "far right" actually does mean "far left". It's meant to be a synonym for the Nazis who were definitely not a conservative party in any sense of the word.

AfD positions: socialism is bad, smaller state, deregulation, strong law and order, no European unification, introduce Swiss-style referenda.

"Far right" (Nazi) positions: socialism is good (it's even in the name), state is totalitarian, run your own street army to destroy law and order, start a war to unify Europe and immediately abolish all voting.

These are opposing positions yet we are told they are the same. It is a rhetorical trick that renders people confused everywhere it is deployed.

"Any view I don't like is far right". Unless it's posted by someone online. Then it's a Russian Bot... or something.

Simple solutions don’t work though. If they did we’d have done them already.

That's a great lesson learned from strategy games (Democracy, Paradox series, Civilisation, etc.). At the country scale, nothing is simple, and therefore anyone claiming otherwise is either dumb and shouldn't be anywhere near power, or lying and thus shouldn't be anywhere near power.

How can it be anti-democratic and populist at the same time?

Easily. For instance, if a movement portrays itself as being supported by the common people and against the elites, then one possible next step is to argue that the mechanisms of democracy have been perverted by those elites, and therefore must be "reformed" or even swept away.

(If you've been paying any attention at all to US politics in the last few years, this should sound pretty familiar.)

That doesn't make sense. No populist parties are arguing for the mechanisms of democracy to be "swept away". They usually want them strengthened with better security and less political censorship.

If 100% of voters in a democracy vote to abolish democracy it's still anti-democratic.

Cause the average voter attacks his system if it does not work for him? The acid eats the stomach? Populists do degrade the host system all the time?

First the system degrades to the point it does not provide to significant part of the population. Then the populists arrive and attack the system. The excuse is usually: It aint no longer democratic anyway, as in a democratic system this whole affair could be altered by flushing the elites out. New faces time, but you still get the old faces.

Which ignores the real iceberg of the problem, situational physics, for which some elites are just a drive-through-workers handing it out. If a society gets energy poor, or for example a whole planet decides to life like usa, there is simply not enough to go around for the now and the longterm.

Can vote all you want against the rain, protest the sky gods, burn your leaky house down in protest, it still will pour on your head. Only thing changing the circumstances is science, by unlocking new pockets of riches.

Comp science is a tremendous waste in that regard. Physics and applied physics is were its at for longterm stabilizing society. Free Energy (gas) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process feed the world, not SV.

That kind of what democracy is though, isn't it?

You might want to read up about the Nazi party. That should give you a good enough answer.

The Nazis were just anti-democratic full stop. They only went the political party route after Hitler ended up in jail for trying to bypass it the first time, they were doing things like beating up their opponents and they abolished it the moment he got into power.

The world is getting more complex over time but it seems the BILD-population does not change much. Social media conflate theses issues and create new ones but do not help solving them. I believe it’s high time for a number of changes:

- simple voting should be replaced by quadratic voting to take into account a small number of passionate voters

- more direct democracy like direct voting and referendum. And a smaller parliament.

- increase the rights of the states and weaken the federal government to facilitate social experiments and competitive solutions. For example, let Bayern experiment with a no-refugee policy but also let them face the consequences (like paying for other states which are taking in refugees). A decline in democracy could be counteracted by more involvement of citizens in the decision processes and grassroots movements.

- encourage kids to play more games like Democracy 4 :) Debates about politics and role playing of organizations like the UN and EU should be a part of the general education. Because if anything, only the youth could bring hope for the future.

It's funny to see it described as "simple" voting. I sometimes lose track of the number of parties here (I guess it's 6 over 5%?) and the interplay of their shifting alliances. It's a far, far, FAR better system than the USA or England. First past the post is cancer.

Not to mention the federalized system works pretty well.

Germany has to be at least in the top 10 for democratic systems in the world

populism = i don't like it