Uncategorized

Überlegungen zum Brexit

lenin_brexit

ich trage mich eigentlich schon länger mit dem gedanken, was zum thema „brexit“ zu papier zu bringen, aber erst durch das doch einigermaßen überraschende ergebnis des referendums in britannien sehe ich mich gezwungen, ein paar zeilen zu formulieren. mir ist auch klar, was der grund für diese zurückhaltung ist: während es in griechenland eine zugespitzte soziale und politische krisensituation gab (aber noch keine vorrevolutionäre situation) , kann davon in britannien nicht die rede sein.

der brexit scheint weniger ein produkt der empörung über soziale zustände „von unten“ zu sein (wenn es das auch trotzdem geben mag), sondern mehr ein streit darüber, welcher weg für den britischen kapitalismus der richtige ist. traditionell gab es in britannien ja schon immer eine starke EU-skepsis; diese ist aber mehr ausdruck anderer ambitionen der herrschenden klasse und der politischen eliten im empire als eine form von sozialprotest.

nun kann man sicher für beide positionen (exit oder drinbleiben) aus „linker“ sicht argumente finden. das problem ist aber, dass es eine revolutionäre oder emanzipatorische strategie und taktik nicht im luftleeren raum gibt. sie sind immer eingebettet in konkrete gesellschaftliche kräfteverhältnisse, die je nach lage sich auch mal schnell ändern können. und beim brexit-referendum ging es niemals — zumindest nach meinem informationsstand — darum, günstigere bedingungen für die „unterklassen“ zu erstreiten (ausser natürlich in der propaganda), sondern eben darum, ob für das britische kapital eine EU-anbindung oder ein stärkerer „souveränismus“ (mit stark nationalistischen und rassistischen tönen) von vorteil ist.

sicher ist es denkbar, dass eine exit-kampagne unter den bedingungen einer sich nach „links“ radikalisierenden „Massenbewegung“ einen taktischen sinn ergeben mag. aber diese situation war nicht einmal in griechenland vorhanden. es sei daran erinnert, dass das „oxi“ zwar gegen die austerität gerichtet war, aber nicht gegen die EU (und die griechische mitgliedschaft in ihr). und noch viel weniger kann in britannien von so einer situation gesprochen werden. von daher wäre meines erachtens nur eine „weder-noch“-haltung möglich gewesen, auch wenn solche boykott-haltungen den nachteil haben, in ihrer wirkung etwas „unpolitisch“ rüberzukommen. da es aber niemals darum ging, irgendwelche „Massenstimmungen“ zu erzeugen, sondern „nur“ darum eine „revolutionär-marxistische“ grundhaltung zu bestimmen (um einen programmatischen pol in der britischen linken zu bilden, die im vergleich zur deutschen linken doch deutlich stärker ist), wäre so eine „weder-noch“-haltung legitim und richtig gewesen*. natürlich setzt sich niemand gern dem vorwurf des „elitismus“ aus, aber kommunist sein im zeitalter der neoliberalen hegemonie kann doch nichts anderes bedeuten als permanent gegen den strom schwimmen zu müssen; auch wenns auf dauer durchaus anstrengend (und nervig) ist!

darum ist auch „destabilisierung“ aus marxistischer sicht kein ziel an sich, solange nicht klar ist, worin ein positiver (emanzipatorischer) ausweg aus den kapitalistischen verhältnissen besteht. der brexit kann daher weder als „Sieg“ noch als „Niederlage“ angesehen werden, er stellt die britische (und europäische) linke und arbeiterklasse nur unter andere (kampf)bedingungen (wobei es offen ist, ob sich diese zum vorteil oder nachteil auswirken. vermutlich wird es eine mischung aus beidem sein).

und da die britische linke, so scheint es mir, in sachen theoretischer und programmatischer klarheit nicht besser dasteht als die deutsche haben wir wohl mehr grund, uns eines „pessimismus des verstandes“ zu befleißigen als uns einem „optimismus des willens“ hinzugeben 😉 .


*) ich möchte hier nicht auf einzelne linke gruppen explizit eingehen. erstens kenne ich die gruppen nicht allzu gut und zweitens sind sie so irrelevant, dass solche polemiken wirklich den schalen beigeschmack von wolkenkuckucksheim und sturm im wasserglas haben. wer sich dafür interessiert, findet hinweise auf die „weder-noch“-haltung bei WSWS, RCIT, IBT und FT-CI. den bock hat meines erachtens wieder mal die L5I geschossen, die es doch glattweg fertiggebracht hat, die „remain“-haltung mit einer „revolutionären“ begründung auszustatten. ja, der opportunismus geht manchmal seltsame wege.
für eine unterscheidung zwischen „linker“ und „rechter“ EU-kritik finde ich folgenden ak-artikel hilfreich: http://www.akweb.de/ak_s/ak609/29.htm

Advertisements

13 Kommentare zu “Überlegungen zum Brexit

  1. In dem von Bernhard angeführten Artikel der IKL heißt es ganz typisch für linke Befürwortung eines Austritts:
    „Amid the growing chaos besetting the EU, a British exit would deal a real blow to this imperialist-dominated conglomerate, further destabilising it and creating more favourable conditions for working-class struggle across Europe“
    Das mit dem „Blow“ will ich ja gar nicht bestreiten. Nur, wie in Teufels Namen kommen die auf die törichte Idee, ausgerechnet diese Orgie in britischem Nationalismus, die es im Vorfeld der Abstimmung schon gegeben hat und die ganzen Diskussionen in den Medien bestimmt hat und die die jetzt folgende Periode ebenfalls prägen wird, seien auch nur ansatzweise „favourable conditions“ für die Arbeiterklasse entstanden, und das auch noch in ganz EU-Europa??

  2. ich komme leider im moment auf die spartacist.org seite nicht drauf. allerdings hat mich die pro-brexit-haltung der IKL auch stark verwundert.
    ich bin mir allerdings bei denen nicht sicher, ob das ausdruck opportunistischer appetite ist oder ob die einfach jeglichen realitätsbezug verloren haben 😉

  3. Was für „opportunistische Appetite“ kämen dir denn bei dieser Position der IKL in den Sinn?

    Hier der obige Artikel:
    „Workers Hammer No. 234
    Spring 2016

    Britain out!
    EU: enemy of workers and immigrants
    For workers unity across European borders!
    Standing on the revolutionary, proletarian and internationalist principles of Marxism, the Spartacist League/Britain welcomes the opportunity to call for a resounding “leave” vote in the upcoming referendum on continued British membership of the European Union (EU). Writing of its predecessor, the Common Market, more than 40 years ago, we declared: “unity under capitalism is not only a myth, which will be shattered in the first serious economic downturn, but must necessarily be directed against the working class, as each national capitalist class attempts to become ‘competitive’ through a policy of ‘rationalization’” (“Labor and the Common Market”, Workers Vanguard no 15, January 1973).

    Who can deny that this has been the case in the decades since, particularly in the wake of the global financial crash in 2007-08? Plunging living standards for working people, massive and rising rates of unemployment, cuts in the most basic social benefits for the elderly, the disabled and the poor, engorging the City of London fat cats — this is the face of this union of imperialist profit-gouging. Under the EU, the monetarist, union-bashing policies — now termed “neo-liberalism” — introduced in the 1980s by Reagan in the US and Thatcher in Britain were extended to the imperialist countries on the continent. The “economic miracle” that has made Germany, once again, the dominant imperialist power in Europe, came on the backs of the German proletariat, not least through the wage- and benefit-slashing Hartz IV “reforms” introduced by Social Democratic (SPD) chancellor Gerhard Schröder more than a decade ago.

    The devastating effects of EU-imposed austerity on weaker capitalist economies, collectively termed with contempt as the “PIGS” — Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain — are all too well known. The need to replenish the coffers of the Frankfurt, Paris and London banks following the financial meltdown of 2007-08 led to the degradation and impoverishment of the Greek masses and the ongoing destruction of the very fabric of Greek society. So much for the cruel lie that imperialist-dominated unity and a common currency, the euro, would usher in an era of prosperity! As our comrades of the Trotskyist Group of Greece stated in a 17 July 2015 call for the urgent formation of workers committees of action: “The EU and its currency the euro have been a tragic trap of suffering for the great bulk of the Greek people. The EU and euro must be repudiated…. Break with the Capitalists and their Banks!” (translated in Workers Hammer no 232, Autumn 2015).

    Joining the myth of EU prosperity on the rubbish heap of spent illusions is the myth of “open borders”. The Schengen Agreement was sold on the promise of passport-free travel within Europe. In fact, it was the foundation stone for racist Fortress Europe. Every week brings new evidence of this. As refugees from imperialist economic depredation and terror-bombing in the Near East, Afghanistan, Africa and elsewhere began arriving in huge numbers on the northern shores of the Mediterranean, border fences and checkpoints began cropping up across Europe.

    Tories in turmoil

    The defining principle of the EU has always been the free movement of capital, not the free movement of people. Yet it is anti-immigrant chauvinism, particularly against workers from the East European countries coming to Britain, which has dominated the debate over Brexit. It was in order to stem growing support from within the Conservative party and its electoral base for Nigel Farage’s virulently chauvinist and anti-immigrant UK Independence Party (UKIP) that Tory prime minister David Cameron called the 23 June referendum in the first place, much to the chagrin of his American senior partners and a sizeable chunk of the British ruling establishment. In the upshot, the Conservative party is more deeply divided than ever, as evidenced by the resignation from the Cabinet of outspoken Brexit advocate Iain Duncan Smith. Duncan Smith’s claim that he quit in protest over cuts in disability benefits rings hollow coming from the man who introduced the “bedroom tax” and has presided over savage “welfare reforms”.

    Both pro- and anti-EU camps in the Tory party whip up anti-immigrant chauvinism. UKIP and Cameron’s Conservative opponents want tighter border controls free of EU interference, while Cameron evokes the spectre of “migrant jungles” in the Southeast of England should Britain leave. Meanwhile, French economy minister Emmanuel Macron declares that France will “roll out a red carpet” for City financiers who choose to move to Paris. This says a lot about how the EU’s lofty “freedom of movement” is meant to work, providing a haven for parasitic financiers but a hell for desperate migrants. The organised working class must mobilise in defence of immigrants against racist reaction, demanding: Full citizenship rights for all who make it to Britain! No deportations!

    For years, Jeremy Corbyn opposed Labour’s longstanding support to the EU. Now Labour under Corbyn links arms with Cameron to call for a “remain” vote. Corbyn emphasises his vision of a “social Europe” and opposes the restrictions on immigrants’ benefits negotiated by Cameron in February. Especially because of the latter, Corbyn is reviled by the Blairite rogues’ gallery — Neil Kinnock, Margaret Beckett, Hilary Benn, David Blunkett, Jack Straw — in the cross-party “Britain Stronger in Europe” campaign. However, the bottom line, as the pro-EU Guardian (16 February) observed, is that Labour under Corbyn may be instrumental in winning a “remain” vote. Noting that “Corbyn is by instinct more Eurosceptic than his party”, the Guardian editorial comments that it is to Corbyn’s “credit and to Labour’s benefit” that he decided to support the pro-EU line. This is about the only thing the Guardian has praised Corbyn for since his leadership election campaign.

    The Irish capitalist rulers have enforced crippling EU-dictated austerity on the working class. In Scotland the bourgeois nationalist SNP is committed to maintaining Scotland’s membership of the EU and of NATO. These junior imperialists-in-waiting are also committed to the British monarchy, the cornerstone of the reactionary “United Kingdom”, which lays claim to Northern Ireland, and is based on English domination over Scotland and Wales. As Marxists, we call for the right of self-determination for Scotland and Wales, and fight for a voluntary federation of workers republics in the British Isles.

    The American connection

    British business is divided over the referendum and the uncertainty about the outcome has caused a drop in the value of sterling. Many manufacturers, who tend to export to continental Europe, favour Britain remaining in the EU. However, what really matters to the British economy is not manufacturing, but finance. Yet opinion in the City of London is also divided. Hedge funds tend towards Brexit, to escape EU regulations, such as caps on bankers’ bonuses. By contrast, the large investment banks favour remaining in the EU. The investment banks are the big fish in the City, and they are predominantly American as well as German and Swiss. While Britain boasts some large investment banks of its own, the City operates on what is known as the “Wimbledon model” — London hosts a world tournament, but is not expected to provide the big players.

    The preponderance of financial parasitism in Britain was already evident in the late 19th century. Writing in 1916, Bolshevik leader VI Lenin noted “the extraordinary growth of a class, or rather, of a stratum of rentiers, i.e., people who live by ‘clipping coupons’” in Britain, whose income “is five times greater than the income obtained from the foreign trade of the biggest ‘trading’ country in the world” (Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism). The tendency that Lenin described became even more pronounced in the aftermath of World War II. And in the 1980s — not coincidentally, following the defeat of the 1984-85 miners strike — Margaret Thatcher oversaw the deregulation of the financial sector, leading to a vast expansion in the wealth of the City bankers.

    Particularly since the end of World War II — and as dramatically demonstrated over the 1956 Suez crisis — British imperialism has been consigned to the role of junior partner to the United States. Economically, this is the role of the City in regard to Wall Street. At the military level, the “special relationship” means Britain’s armed forces join in virtually every US military operation, including the devastation of Afghanistan, Iraq and other parts of the Near East. And within the EU, Britain acts in part as an advocate for US interests.

    Thus Washington can barely conceal its anger with the Cameron government for risking a British exit from the EU. In a February discussion in the US Senate, Damon Wilson, former European affairs director under Republican George W Bush, warned that a British exit would deprive the US of “a critical voice in shaping not only EU policy, but the future of Europe”. Barack Obama is now scheduled to visit Britain in April for a “big, public reach-out” to boost the vote to keep Britain in the EU.

    NATO, EU and Cold War

    The EU’s forerunner, the Common Market, was set up as an economic adjunct of NATO, the US-dominated military alliance directed against the Soviet Union. In the words of NATO’s first secretary general, Lord Ismay, its purpose was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”. Today, bourgeois mythology claims that the EU, a product of the imperialist Cold War, has prevented a repeat of World War II. In the midst of a crisis over the euro, Angela Merkel declared: “Nobody should believe that another half century of peace in Europe is a given — it’s not” (Telegraph, 26 October 2011).

    It was the Soviet Union that brought an end to the war in Europe, liberating the continent from the Nazi Third Reich, at the cost of 27 million Soviet lives. The victory of the Red Army also tore much of Central and Eastern Europe from capitalist exploitation. In this context, the capitalist rulers in Western Europe conceded systems of benefits known as the ‘welfare state’.

    The product of the 1917 October Revolution, the Soviet Union remained a workers state — based on the expropriation of the capitalists and the collectivisation of the means of production — despite its degeneration under the rule of a bureaucratic caste headed by JV Stalin. Until the bitter end, we fought for unconditional military defence of the Soviet Union and the bureaucratically deformed workers states of Central and Eastern Europe which were modelled on it. This was linked to the perspective of proletarian political revolution to oust the Stalinist bureaucracy and return the USSR to the internationalist road of Lenin and Trotsky’s Bolsheviks. Uniquely, we Trotskyists fought to preserve and extend the revolutionary gains of the working class, while every other tendency on the planet capitulated to the ideological pressure of anti-communism.

    The restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union in 1991-92 led to the immiseration of the working masses throughout the former Soviet republics and unleashed a flood tide of bloody internecine slaughter. In the absence of the Soviet Union as a counterweight, US imperialism was emboldened to ride roughshod over the downtrodden and oppressed around the globe, from the Balkans to the Near East. Capitalist counterrevolution also encouraged the imperialist ruling classes of Europe to attack the social benefits associated with the postwar “welfare state”.

    Following capitalist counterrevolution, which laid the basis for a resurgent, reunified Germany, NATO became primarily an instrument for the US to express its military dominance in Europe. As we wrote at the time of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, which founded the EU:

    “Two and a half years ago the postwar era came to an end when the disintegrating Soviet bureaucracy under Gorbachev abandoned East Germany, thereby reversing the Red Army’s victory over the Nazi Third Reich….
    “West Germany was transformed from a Cold War ally of American imperialism into an aggressive Fourth Reich seeking mastery of Europe.”
    — “Euro-Chaos”, Workers Vanguard no 560, 2 October 1992

    To curtail German imperialist ambitions, Washington insisted that Germany remain a member of NATO after its annexation of the former East German (DDR) deformed workers state. When reunified German imperialism precipitated the bloody break-up of the Yugoslav deformed workers state by engineering the secession of Croatia and Slovenia, the US countered with a NATO military intervention in Bosnia. The US also began the extension of NATO to Eastern Europe, including through sponsoring and funding various “colour revolutions” in formerly Soviet or Soviet-allied countries. These operations led to the fascist-infested coup in the Ukraine two years ago.

    For its part, French imperialism supported German unification on the condition that Germany accept a common European currency intended to curb the power of the deutschmark. At the behest of the French Socialist Party’s Jacques Delors, the single currency was enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty which established the framework for the EU of today. Far from weakening German imperialism’s power, the euro has strengthened it, including against its French rival.

    Nonetheless, interimperialist rivalries have largely remained muted since the fall of the USSR due to the disproportionate military strength of the US, which outstrips by many times over its main imperialist rivals, Germany and Japan. At the same time, US military strength is greatly disproportionate to its economic strength.

    Behind the facade of European-US unity against Putin’s capitalist Russia, interimperialist rivalries are bubbling away. London has been reluctant to alienate the wealthy Russian oligarchs for whom the City is an offshore banking centre and a playground. The French government was reluctant to cancel lucrative arms sales to the Putin regime. And German imperialism is dependent on Russia for trade and as a source of energy. A significant concern of the US imperialists today is to prevent a German-Russian alliance. Germany’s military might pales in comparison to that of the US — although given Germany’s industrial base that could change in short order. But Germany’s economic prowess combined with Russia’s substantial military hardware, much of it inherited from the former Soviet Union, could constitute a future counterweight to the US.

    Kautsky’s “ultra-imperialism” in new clothes

    Amid the growing chaos besetting the EU, a British exit would deal a real blow to this imperialist-dominated conglomerate, further destabilising it and creating more favourable conditions for working-class struggle across Europe — including against a weakened and discredited Tory government in Britain. But the failure of Labour and the trade union bureaucracy — like the social democrats and trade union misleaders throughout Europe — to mobilise against the EU has instead ceded the oppositional ground to openly anti-immigrant reactionaries and fascists.

    In the early 1970s, when some 70 per cent of the British population opposed entry into the Common Market, the Labour left and the TUC did so as well, albeit from the standpoint of “little England” nationalism and “save British jobs” protectionism. Protectionism provides a cover for rejecting the class struggle in favour of class collaboration and promotes vile anti-foreigner chauvinism. To such wretched appeals to one’s “own” government, Marxists counterpose a class-struggle fight by the trade unions against factory closures and for jobs for all, with no loss in pay.

    In any case, when Britain joined the Common Market after the 1975 referendum, there was not a peep from the TUC bureaucracy. Having betrayed the heroic 1984-85 miners strike, whose victory could have reversed the anti-union onslaught and inspired class struggle in Europe, the British trade union tops then found a convenient excuse for dropping even formal opposition to the European capitalist club. Their “conversion” came at the hands of Jacques Delors, who taught the TUC how to sell the imperialist trade bloc’s “social dimension”. A statement adopted at the TUC’s most recent congress last September stated: “Over the years, Congress has consistently expressed support for a European Union that delivers economic prosperity based on social justice, civil and human rights, equality for all and rights at work.” The “social justice” and “rights” the EU supposedly enshrines — and which it certainly has not delivered — are a cheap, superficial cover for privatisation, welfare cuts and lay-offs, and the general policy of opening up public services to the market, while driving down workers’ pay and conditions throughout Europe.

    While generally orbiting around the Labour Party, both the Socialist Party of Peter Taaffe’s Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) and the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) of the late Tony Cliff have come out for a “leave” vote in the name of anti-austerity. Both groups point to the EU’s devastating attacks on the Greek population. But their opposition in words is belied by their political deeds. Both groups celebrated the first election victory of the pro-EU Syriza in January 2015. The Syriza government went on to implement the EU’s austerity diktats. Meanwhile, the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, which is dominated by the Socialist Party and supported by the SWP, opposes EU membership with the caveat that it will “fully respect the right of those in our coalition who don’t support this stand to campaign publically [sic] for their own position”.

    One (barely) reformist group that has been on the frontlines in fighting for the EU is the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (AWL). The AWL has launched a “Stay in and fight for a workers’ Europe” campaign, pushing a series of model motions aimed at mobilising trade union branches, Labour Party and other organisations against an exit. An AWL statement headlined “European Union’s limited unity at risk” castigates Cameron’s referendum for further endangering the “fabric” of European unity (Solidarity, 27 January). The statement goes on to argue:

    “Even under capitalism, voluntary European unity is better than high barriers between countries. It is progress compared to centuries of elite feuding, wars, and nationalism. At the social and economic level, Europe is the rational arena in which to develop the economies of the European countries, and begin to level up conditions for working-class people across Europe and further afield; to organise industrial and agricultural production to benefit the whole human race, as well as to protect the environment on which we all depend.”
    This paean to European capitalist unity would shame even that renegade from Marxism, Karl Kautsky. Writing in 1914, on the eve of the first interimperialist world war, Kautsky posited the possibility of a “peaceful” capitalism on the basis of supranational monopolies: “Cannot the present imperialist policy be supplanted by a new, ultra-imperialist policy, which will introduce the joint exploitation of the world by internationally united finance capital in place of the mutual rivalries of national finance capitals? Such a new phase of capitalism is at any rate conceivable” (quoted in Lenin, Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism, 1916). Lenin’s pamphlet elaborating a Marxist understanding of imperialism was a sustained polemic against Kautsky’s illusion-mongering.

    Lenin demonstrated that imperialism is not an optional policy, but rather the ineluctable, final stage of capitalism, as free-market competition leads to the predominance of monopoly capitalism and industrial capital is submerged into finance capital. A necessary corollary to the rise and dominance of finance capital was the growth of militarism, as the great powers vied for control of colonies and spheres of exploitation, ultimately through war, on the basis of a changing relationship of forces. Lenin concluded:

    “the only objective, i.e., real, social significance of Kautsky’s ‘theory’ is this: it is a most reactionary method of consoling the masses with hopes of permanent peace being possible under capitalism, by distracting their attention from the sharp antagonisms and acute problems of the present times, and directing it towards illusory prospects of an imaginary ‘ultra-imperialism’ of the future.”
    The crises wracking the EU today again demonstrate the contradiction between the international world market created by capitalism and the nation-state through which capitalism emerged and developed. The nation state has become an obstacle to the expansion of the productive forces. But this obstacle cannot be transcended through some kind of supranational capitalist institution. The very premise of capitalism is the competition among various capitalist combines — each ultimately dependent on the military power of its own capitalist state to protect its investments — for the highest rate of return, ie, for the maximal exploitation of the working class at home and abroad. The more powerful countries will inevitably dominate the weaker countries and seek to get the greater share of the spoils. The purpose of the EU is to facilitate this.

    That this unstable imperialist alliance has lasted as long as it has is primarily the responsibility of the Labourites and social democrats and their accomplices in the trade union bureaucracy. They have not only urged workers to politically support the EU but have also aided the imperialist bourgeoisies by refusing to wage the kind of class struggle that could have defeated the anti-union and austerity measures inflicted by the capitalists. The International Communist League fights to forge internationalist proletarian vanguard parties, modelled on Lenin’s Bolsheviks, to lead new October revolutions in Britain and around the globe. What we wrote over 40 years ago in “Labor and the Common Market” stands up today in relation to the EU:

    “Only unity on a socialist basis, accomplished by proletarian revolution and the expropriation of the giant monopolies, can institute rational worldwide economic development without exploitation. A socialist united states of Europe can only be created on the basis of the most vigorous struggle against the capitalist Common Market and all it stands for. And only under united control by the workers themselves can the productive capacity of Europe be put at the service of the entire world’s working peoples.”“

  4. „Was für „opportunistische Appetite“ kämen dir denn bei dieser Position der IKL in den Sinn?“

    na ja, zumindest eine aufweichung im kampf gegen den nationalismus. ich kann mich dran erinnern, dass es in der TLD im zuge der friedensbewegung in den 80ern schon losungen wie „BRD raus aus der NATO“ gegeben hat (die dann aber zurückgenommen wurden).

    nun sind sich die sparts allerdings der reaktionären gefahren durchaus bewusst, auch wenn mir die analyse zu stark auf die „führungen“ fokussiert:

    „Amid the growing chaos besetting the EU, a British exit would deal a real blow to this imperialist-dominated conglomerate, further destabilising it and creating more favourable conditions for working-class struggle across Europe — including against a weakened and discredited Tory government in Britain. But the failure of Labour and the trade union bureaucracy — like the social democrats and trade union misleaders throughout Europe — to mobilise against the EU has instead ceded the oppositional ground to openly anti-immigrant reactionaries and fascists.“

    hier wird aber eine „kleinigkeit“ übersehen. dass die gewerkschtsführungen und sozialdemokraten nicht gegen die EU mobilisieren, ist kein „fehler“, sondern ausdruck ihrer genuin bürgerlichen politik. die pro-brexit-haltung der IKL scheint mir daher ausdruck eines gewissen opportunismus gegen „bürgerliche arbeiterparteien“ (überschätzung ihrer handlungsmöglichkeiten, obwohl die basis ja meistens loyal ist) und illusionen in die möglichkeit, den „reformismus“ nach links zu drücken, zu sein.

    in wirklichkeit konnten marxisten bei diesem brexit-referendum KEINE seite einnehmen, weil es ein rein innerbürgerlicher streit ist!

    (danke für das kopieren des artikels 🙂 )

  5. Schon bei der „Grexit“-Debatte hatte die IKL übrigens die gleiche Linie.
    „Grexit would set the stage for further exposing these predators for what they are: like the imperialists, the class enemy of the Greek workers. It would help break workers from Greek nationalism, the lie that the workers and their “own” exploiters have a common interest.“
    http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/1075/ig.html

  6. Ein marx21-Freund bei Facebook hat ein schönes Eingeständnis:
    „Ich möchte EUch nicht! Nur — was ist die Alternative? Niemand kann ernsthaft seinen KollegInnen sagen: der Kommunismus!“
    Die von marx12 jedenfalls schon mal nicht. Aber das wußte man ja auch vorher schon.

  7. Und hier noch der Bundessprecher*innen-Rat der Antikapitalistischen Linken in der LINKEN am 25. Juni 2016 zum Ausgang des EU-Referendums in Großbritannien:

    „es soll Leute geben, die hartnäckig behaupten, diese grundsätzliche Ausrichtung der EU könne durch Mitgestaltung, innere Reformen und Internet-Aufrufe von Intellektuellen gebremst und umgedreht werden. Wir sind es leid, darüber zu diskutieren, weil die Geschichte sich leider weiter entwickelt hat: Die EU hat ihre Unschuld verloren. Ihr Frontex-Regime an den Außengrenzen, ihre Politik gegenüber Millionen von Menschen, die aus Armut, Krieg und Umweltkrise flüchten müssen, sind zu einem Massaker an Menschen, zu einem Massengrab im Mittelmeer geworden. Ihre eigenständigen oder im Bündnis mit der Nato verfolgten Militäreinsätze im Balkan, Afghanistan, Naher Osten und in den früheren afrikanischen Kolonien haben die EU zu einer Kriegspartei erster Güte werden lassen, dessen aktuelles Gesellenstück in der Ukraine-Frage und der neuen Aggression gegenüber Russland angefertigt wird. Und die ebenfalls über Leichen gehende Erpressungspolitik gegenüber Griechenland hat sich erstmals nicht gescheut, ein eigenes Mitglied mit barbarischen Spardiktaten unter Verletzung selbst der eigenen EU-Grundlagen in die Knie zu zwingen.
    Diese konkrete Praxis der EU darf nicht mehr nur abstrakt kritisiert werden, sondern die Linke Europas, die Gewerkschafts- und Arbeiterbewegung müssen dieser Politik praktisch in den Arm fallen. Deshalb ist es gut, wenn die Politik und die Strukturen der EU ins Stocken kommen und am weiteren üblen Geschäft gehindert werden. Selbst wenn das nur bei einem Teil der Akteure beim britischen Referendum zum Thema gemacht wurde, selbst wenn die nationalistischen Krakeeler nicht zum Verstummen gebracht werden konnten, so ist die praktische Wirkung eines „Leave“ beim britischen Referendum nützlich für eine antimilitaristische und antiimperialistische Politik überall in Europa.“
    http://www.scharf-links.de/44.0.html?&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=56562&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=56&cHash=f01d933968

    Also recht weitgehend das Gleiche, was die IKL auch schon geschrieben hatte. Im Guten wie im Schlechten.

  8. Statement of the Central Committee of the Spartacist League/Britain (24 June 2016):

    EU: enemy of workers and immigrants
    Brexit: defeat for the bankers and bosses of Europe!
    Statement of the Central Committee of the Spartacist League/Britain
    JUNE 24 — Standing on our consistent record of proletarian, revolutionary and internationalist opposition to the imperialist-dominated European Union (EU), the Spartacist League/Britain welcomes the decisive vote for a British exit. This is a stunning defeat for the City of London, for the bosses and bankers of Europe as a whole as well as for Wall Street and the US imperialist government. The vote to leave is an expression of hostility from the downtrodden and dispossessed not only to the EU but to the smug British ruling establishment, whose devastation of social services and industry has plunged whole sections of the proletariat into penury.

    As we wrote in Workers Hammer (no 234, Spring 2016), calling for a leave vote : “Amid the growing chaos besetting the EU, a British exit would deal a real blow to this imperialist-dominated conglomerate, further destabilising it and creating more favourable conditions for working-class struggle across Europe — including against a weakened and discredited Tory government in Britain. But the failure of Labour and the trade union bureaucracy — like the social democrats and trade union misleaders throughout Europe — to mobilise against the EU has instead ceded the oppositional ground to openly anti-immigrant reactionaries and fascists.”

    With anti-EU sentiment running high among working people in France, Spain, Italy and Greece, the vote for Brexit will encourage opposition to the EU elsewhere in Europe. The main purpose of the EU is to maximise the profits of the imperialist ruling classes at the expense of the workers, from Germany to Greece, and of the weaker countries of Europe. The exit of British imperialism could sound the death knell for this inherently unstable capitalist club. Down with the EU! For workers revolution to smash capitalist rule! For a Socialist United States of Europe!

    The far right and fascist forces — including UKIP in Britain and the National Front in France — are today rejoicing over “their” victory. UKIP blatantly whipped up vile anti-immigrant racism, including with a disgusting poster implying that thousands of dark-skinned refugees were at Britain’s door. But UKIP hardly has a monopoly on racism: Cameron invoked the spectre of migrant camps similar to the Calais “Jungle” in France moving to England in the event of a British exit. And Labour governments have whipped up anti-immigrant racism just like the Tories. We say: No deportations! Full citizenship rights for all who make it to Britain! Down with racist Fortress Europe!

    Those who voted for Brexit did so for a variety of reasons. But only the wilfully blind in the workers movement will see the vote for Brexit as simply a boost for UKIP and the Tory right wing. Cameron has resigned, the Conservatives have been bitterly divided, the capitalist rulers of Europe are in shock. The time is ripe for workers struggles to begin to claw back decades of concessions to the bourgeoisie on wages, working conditions and trade union rights by the reformist union bureaucrats. For a start, the multinational and multiethnic workforce of the NHS should tear up the wretched agreement imposed on junior doctors and mobilise to fight for a revitalised and expanded national health service to provide quality care to all totally free at the point of service. At least the junior doctors fought, unlike Len McCluskey and the rest of the pro-capitalist trade union tops who refused even to mobilise their ranks to fight Cameron’s pernicious new anti-union law. What is needed is a fight for a class-struggle leadership of the unions.

    In the wake of the EU’s ravaging of Greece, the “left” Brexit camp, including the Communist Party, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Socialist Party offered a half-hearted campaign for a leave vote. From their reformist “old Labour” standpoint, the EU is a barrier to achieving their maximum programme: renationalising British industry under a left Labour government. Faced with closures of the steel plants, this ultimately boils down to a protectionist call to “save British jobs”, which fuels anti-foreigner chauvinism and is counterposed to a class-struggle perspective. The morning after the Brexit vote, the SWP’s crowning demand is: Tories out — for a general election.

    A year ago, the same outrage and discontent at the base of society that propelled the vote to leave the EU also fuelled the election of Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the Labour Party, opening the possibility of reforging Labour’s historic links to its working-class base and thus reversing two decades of Blairite schemes to turn Labour into an outright capitalist party. But in campaigning for a remain vote, Corbyn trampled on the interests of the many working people and minorities who looked to him for a change. Crime does not pay: when the results of the referendum came in, Corbyn’s enemies began plotting to remove him from the leadership as soon as possible. It is in the interests of the working class to repulse any and every attempt by Labour’s right wing to regain control of the party.

    Today the country is divided — by class, and along regional and national lines. England — outside London — and Wales voted to leave the EU. A majority in Northern Ireland voted to remain, reflecting fears among Catholics that border controls between North and South would be reinstituted. Scotland too voted to remain in the EU, and the SNP has declared that a second referendum on independence is on the agenda. The bourgeois nationalist SNP are committed to maintaining an “independent” Scotland’s membership of the major Western imperialist clubs — the NATO military alliance and the EU. Corbyn’s capitulation to the imperialist EU has deprived working-class opposition to the EU in Scotland (and elsewhere) of a political voice.

    The Brexit vote is the second time in the space of a year that the working masses in Europe have voted to repudiate the EU. Last July’s vote in Greece against EU austerity was utterly betrayed by the bourgeois Syriza government, which crawled on its knees before the European banks. The burning question posed is what kind of party does the working class need to represent its interests. The fundamental problems facing the working class cannot be solved within a parliamentary framework. We need a government based on workers councils, which expropriates the capitalist class.

    As part of the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist) we seek to build revolutionary workers parties, in Britain and around the world, rooted in the understanding that only through the mass mobilisation of the working class in struggle can the workers fight for their own interests and act in defence of all the oppressed. Socialist revolutions especially in the economically developed countries of Europe, including Britain, will establish rationally planned economies based on an international division of labour. The overthrow of the capitalist ruling classes and the development of the productive forces under a socialist united states of Europe will open the road to a global socialist society.

  9. die RCIT kririsiert die pro-remain-haltung der GAM/L5I aus meiner sicht ziemlich korrekt:

    http://www.thecommunists.net/home/deutsch/gam-brexit/

    etwas ähnliches gibt es jetzt auch von RIO in bezug auf SAV und GAM, also eine kritik sowohl an „linkem leave“ wie „linkem remain, wobei noch zusätzlich eine historische analogie zum „roten volksentscheid“ der KPD gezogen wird:

    https://www.klassegegenklasse.org/brexit-referendum-und-roter-volksentscheid-sollten-revolutionaerinnen-zusammen-mit-rechtsextremen-abstimmen/

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s