Dear Britain,
When Stalin was asked in the
late 1920s which is worse, the right or the left, he snapped back: “They are
both worse!” And this is my first reaction to the question of whether or not to
leave the EU.
I am not interested in sending
love letters to the British public with the sentimental message: “Please stay
in Europe!” What interests me is ultimately only one question. Europe is now
caught in a vicious cycle, oscillating between the false opposites of surrender
to global capitalism and surrender to anti-immigrant populism – which politics has
a chance of enabling us to step out of this mad dance?
The symbols of global
capitalism are secretly negotiated trade agreements such as the Trade in
Services Agreement (Tisa) or Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
(TTIP). The social impact of TTIP is clear enough: it stands for nothing less
than a brutal assault on democracy. Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of
Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), which allow companies to sue
governments if their policies cause a loss of profits. Simply put, this means
that unelected transnational corporations can dictate the policies of
democratically elected governments.
So how would Brexit fare in
this context? From a leftwing standpoint, there are some good reasons to
support Brexit: a strong nation state exempted from the control of Brussels
technocrats can protect the welfare state and counteract austerity politics.
However, I am worried about the ideological and political background of this
option. From Greece to France, a new trend is arising in what remains of the
“radical left”: the rediscovery of nationalism. All of a sudden, universalism
is out, dismissed as a lifeless political and cultural counterpart of
“rootless” global capital.
The reason for this is
obvious: the rise of rightwing nationalist populism in western Europe, which is
now the strongest political force advocating the protection of working class
interests, and simultaneously the strongest political force able to give rise
to proper political passions. So the reasoning goes: why should the left leave
this field of nationalist passions to the radical right, why should it not
“reclaim la patrie from the Front National”?
In this leftwing populism, the
logic of Us against Them remains, however here “they” are not poor refugees or immigrants,
but financial capital and technocratic state bureaucracy. This populism moves
beyond the old working class anticapitalism; it tries to bring together a
multiplicity of struggles from ecology to feminism, from the right to
employment to free education and healthcare.
The recurrent story of the
contemporary left is that of a leader or party elected with universal
enthusiasm, promising a “new world” (Mandela, Lula) – but sooner or later,
usually after a couple of years, they stumble upon the key dilemma: does one
dare to touch the capitalist mechanisms, or does one decide to “play the game”?
If one disturbs the mechanisms, one is very swiftly punished by market
perturbations, economic chaos and the rest. So how can we push things further
after the first enthusiastic stage is over?
I remain convinced that our
only hope is to act trans-nationally – only in this way do we have a chance to
constrain global capitalism. The nation-state is not the right instrument to
confront the refugee crisis, global warming, and other truly pressing issues.
So instead of opposing Eurocrats on behalf of national interests, let’s try to
form an all-European left. And it is because of this margin of hope that I am
tempted to say: vote against Brexit, but do it as a devout Christian who
supports a sinner while secretly cursing him. Don’t compete with the rightwing
populists, don’t allow them to define the terms of the struggle. Socialist
nationalism is not the right way to fight the threat of national socialism.
• Against
the Double Blackmail is published by Allen Lane.
No comments:
Post a Comment