[_19qg]

For the US reader:

> 39 MPs in the Bundestag

Out of currently 733 MPs with a parliament with "proportional representation", where the number of seats is proportional to the number of votes (Germany-wide, not local). Die Linke thus has 5.3% seats in the Bundestag. Thus this is not "a lot of votes" in relation to the voting population.

> "anti-capitalist" (which seems to be more popular than claiming to be socialist)

Anti-capitalism is found in right-wing parties, too. Like the German AFD.

[davrosthedalek]

I don't think this gives an accurate picture. Even a 5% party can have an outsized influence on the politics. And it's not clear what the next election will bring.

> Anti-capitalism is found in right-wing parties, too. Like the German AFD. Well, many/most of their proponents now seem to be fans of an older party which had national socialism in the name, so no surprise.

In reality, the market rules and social net in most of Europe and US are not /that/ different. Both allow private ownership of production, both have market economy.

Yes, the US says it's a free market, but it isn't. It's maybe free-er. Germany has a "social market economy", which mostly means that some (insurance) costs are lifted from the incur-er and distributed socially. Both have a social security equivalent, with Germany better coverage for unemployment, and US better retirement, AFAICT.

[lispm]

> Even a 5% party can have an outsized influence on the politics

Die Linke does not have an "outsized influence". It's also shrinking.

It may seem to have "outsized influence" for someone from the US or the UK, with their different voting system, which practically creates a two-party system. In a proportional representation system smaller parties have influence, too - for example by being a coalition member.

Die Linke has not been a member of a coalition in Germany, so far, and it is not expected that this will change.

> which mostly means that some (insurance) costs are lifted from the incur-er and distributed socially

That's a very narrow view. Try to get a German-style workers council at an US company. Good luck!

[davrosthedalek]

> Die Linke does not have an "outsized influence". It's also shrinking.

Yes, it's shrinking because Sarah exited left, came back in on the right, and now has her own party with blackjack and racists.

> It may seem to have "outsized influence" for someone from the US or the UK, with their different voting system, which practically creates a two-party system. In a proportional representation system smaller parties have influence, too - for example by being a coalition member.

Well, my point is that without explanation, 5% sounds like "completely irrelevant" for many people. So I guess we are in agreement. But even if you are familiar with the German system, do you not think that both FDP and Greens had an outsized influence in the just ending coalition compared to the SPD, in relation to their relative voting percentage? And historically, the FDP and CSU have a lot more influence that what would be proportional to their vote share compared to the bigger partners. I am not saying this is bad, I am saying that even a 5% party can have a relatively large impact on politics in the German system.

Die Linke has not been in a coalition on the Bund level, but it certainly was so in the Laender. While Laender are a lot less powerful compared to US states, that's not nothing.

>That's a very narrow view. Try to get a German-style workers council at an US company. Good luck!

Implementation detail. An alternative are strong unions. Some US unions are stronger than German unions. Ask the teachers about the "Dritte Weg".

My point is not: US and Germany are the same. My point is: It's a gradual difference. Not a complete systems change.

[lispm]

> And historically, the FDP and CSU have a lot more influence that what would be proportional to their vote share compared to the bigger partners.

I don't think the influence is "outsized". Any party with 5% shares AND being in a coalition has much more influence than a party with 5% AND not in a coalition. A party with 4.9% may have very little influence, when not in a coalition and not even represented in the Bundestag. There are steps from very little influence to normal influence. The CSU never had that much special influence, since they were basically the CDU with a different name, but in Bavaria. It appeared larger because it was historically a different party, but basically only as an historic accident. The politics of CDU and CSU are largely the same. The CSU (only in Bavaria) getting more persons into the government may look like "more influence", but is largely the same policy as the CDU (in Germany minus Bavaria).

The FDP has left the current coalition, exactly BECAUSE they thought their influence was too low and they had to agree to too many unwanted compromises.

> My point is: It's a gradual difference. Not a complete systems change.

The currently policy landscape looks very different to me. Ultra-rich billionaires ruling US politics.

[tcfhgj]

FDP didn't leave, they only planned to do so, but could not, because they have been kicked out of the coalition before.

[lispm]

Kind of.

Chancellor Scholz removed Christian Lindner from the position as Finance Minister.

The FDP then left the coalition. Die ZEIT writes:

"Die FDP zieht alle ihre Minister aus der Bundesregierung zurück. Sie wollten ihren Rücktritt geschlossen beim Bundespräsidenten einreichen, kündigte Fraktionschef Christian Dürr in Berlin an. Damit beendet die FDP das Dreierbündnis der Ampelkoalition."

One of the FDP ministers left the FDP and stayed in the Scholz government.