The state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force is one of the essential achievements of a modern constitutional order. It protects citizens from arbitrary action and ensures that political conflicts are fought through argument rather than physical aggression. Yet this foundation is coming under severe strain—driven in part by shifts in public discourse fostered by prominent media outlets. A prime example is a commentary published in the German daily die tageszeitung (taz), which demonstrates how the boundaries between defensive vigilance and the justification of violent resistance are being blurred within left-wing media circles.
The catalyst for the current debate was the controversy surrounding musician Danger Dan and his track “Keine Angst” (“No Fear”), which frames militant left-wing tactics as a valid option against right-wing extremism. In an opinion piece titled “Weckruf zur Wehrhaftigkeit” (A Wake-up Call for Resistance) on taz.de, taz editor Jens Uthoff used the song to call for a re-evaluation of left-wing militant action. However, when an established voice of the alternative-left media begins weighing resistance strategies of a “violent nature,” political reporting crosses into a dangerous gray zone of ideological justification.
The Argumentative Framework in the taz: Rhetoric of Necessity and State Failure
The narrative employed in the taz article utilizes mechanisms that systematically lower the threshold for political violence:
- The Narrative of Helplessness: The author portrays the electoral rise of the AfD and rising hate crimes as a reality in which left-wing political violence must be understood as a “last resort.” Instead of unequivocally condemning physical aggression, it is framed as an understandable reaction born out of powerlessness.
- Preempting State Collapse: The commentary suggests that state security forces can no longer be trusted in the event of an AfD state government. To support this, the author references Sven Hüber, deputy head of a major German police union, who publicly called on officers to disobey unconstitutional orders. When media outlets advance the thesis that the constitutional state is failing to protect vulnerable groups, they systematically undermine public confidence in democratic institutions.
- Refusing to Draw a Red Line: Rather than maintaining a strict boundary against physical violence, the taz concludes that the legitimacy of organized, violent resistance is a question that must be “reposed daily.” This stance directly erodes the principled recognition of the state’s monopoly on force.
A Dangerous Double Standard
The editorial coverage in the taz reveals a stark asymmetry in how political extremism is addressed. While right-wing hate speech and violence are rightly condemned with full force, left-wing political violence frequently receives conceptual softening under the mantle of “antifascism” or “defending vulnerable groups.” Acts that constitute criminal offenses under the rule of law are reinterpreted as “civil society self-defense.”
This romanticized redefinition of political violence—as reflected in Jens Uthoff’s commentary in the taz—undermines the principle of equality before the law. Whenever media platforms make the perpetrator’s political intent the measuring stick for whether violence is permissible, they enter the realm of ideological justice.
Why the Media Must Safeguard Democratic Principles
History demonstrates that whenever political factions view the streets as a battleground and take law enforcement into their own hands, democratic consensus collapses. When journalists and commentators begin framing physical force as an acceptable instrument in political debates, the space for peaceful, democratic protest shrinks.
A resilient democracy demands an unshakeable commitment to the state’s monopoly on force. Outlets like the taz carry a societal responsibility: they must neither trivialize nor legitimize extremist tendencies—regardless of which political direction they stem from. Those who claim to defend civil rights must not justify the tools of political violence.