Rackete ignites: Who needs Marx!
Rackete ignites: Who needs Marx!
The Left Party’s tactic of attracting the liberal-activist milieu with figures like Carola Rackete backfires.
Why the Left Party will achieve no success this way, and why the liberal-activist environment only distances itself further from Marxism.
Reminder: The words marked in red are links leading to corresponding critique articles.
In 2024/2799(RSP), titled “Resolution on continued financial and military support to Ukraine by EU Member States”, the procedure can be summarized as follows:
It mainly concerns ensuring Ukraine’s unhindered ability to “attack legitimate military targets in Russia, as stated by the deputies“.
“Ukraine must be able to exercise its right to self-defense in full,” the parliament regrets the decreasing bilateral military aid from EU countries to Ukraine.
Thus, the resolution 2024/2799(RSP), “Resolution on continued financial and military support to Ukraine by EU Member States”, passed with 425 votes in favor (“Yes”), 131 votes against (“No”), and 63 abstentions.
Well, it’s clear that this escalation of the conflict is, logically, the last step before the shelling of the Russian mainland with NATO weapons, and the voting results reflect this.
425 deputies voted “Yes”, 131 “No”, and 63 abstained.
It is also noteworthy that the voting results of the three German deputies of the “The Left” faction are of relevance here, particularly the “Yes” vote of the deputy Carola Rackete, who entered through the Left Party’s list.
The Left Party’s list thus directly contributed to the escalation of the war with Rackete’s vote.
Rackete entered the Bundestag in 2024 as one of three German deputies via the Left Party’s list, although she is not a party member.
She is an activist, environmental scientist, and captain—gaining fame as the captain of Sea-Watch 3, where she actively rescued 53 people from drowning off the Libyan coast; undoubtedly an honorable and solidaric act.
Despite this, Rackete remains a symbol for the decline of the German Left.
As the Left Party itself admitted, her list position was a “mistake (…) the party did not know her, and she did not know our party.”
The claim by the Left Party, which is struggling more than ever with insignificance, that they did not know her “positions” is at least doubtful because Rackete clearly and openly stands for the liberal-activist milieu, and was meant to serve tactically for the Left Party.
Rackete was supposed to facilitate further openness of the Left Party towards the left-liberal milieus, who are increasingly disillusioned with the Greens and SPD.
The result was the party’s worst EU election result since its founding, with only 2.7%, so this strategy only partially succeeded.
Rackete exemplifies this failure: “Left” without any historical or scientific foundation, where “left” is de facto associated with virtue-signaling, but without clear Marxist connection.
Just as Green voters consider themselves “left”, the left-liberal milieu Rackete aimed to attract no longer sees “left” as more than superficial capitalism critique, often only lightly criticizing the status quo.
Examples of such superficial critiques are “Wages high, prices low, profits capped!”[1], and the general social democratic policy style that supports higher income taxes, minimum wages, and compensation, but no longer challenges the underlying mechanisms behind these processes.
The same applies to peace policy, where the Left Party, although officially advocating reasonable positions, does not align with the milieu it seeks to attract.
The new tactics and composition of the Left Party, which in large parts was celebrated by the left press as a “coup of the Left” (Stern) and a “sign of life of the party” (Taz), have so far turned out to be a disaster for the party.
The strategy of trying to impress the liberal-activist milieu with figures like Rackete is the wrong conclusion from the party’s decline: potential voters do not want a watered-down, mainstream version that largely resembles the social democratic status quo – this applies both to Marxists and to former core voters in the East, who have turned away from the Left partly because it lost its populism.
This also applies to staunch “leftists” advocating socialist issues, including socialist rhetoric, as well as cross-party issues like the peace question, where it is not possible for the Left to present a unified Marxist position on the Ukraine war and the Gaza genocide.
Imagine if this were the case; half of all AfD voters cite “peace policy” as a voting reason, thousands of young people turn away from the Left because they refuse to clearly label the genocide in Gaza as such.
The withdrawal from leadership positions of Wissler and Schirdewan about a month ago, accompanied by (much too late) self-criticism, creates space for new developments and ironically underscores the (unfortunate but correct) cliché that the Left Party is too unstable to be a reliable choice.
Ironically, this cliché is even addressed in their final speech; “Many who had trusted us and voted for us for a long time have the impression: You are busy with yourselves, you are not there for us.”
Nevertheless, the new candidate for the party leadership, Ines Schwerdtner, actually offers a glimmer of hope.
The East German publicist was previously editor-in-chief of the German Jacobin and has written for Analyse & Kritik as well as for Der Freitag.
The party member from Angern said to dpa: “She is not a Berlin bubble,” which she indeed seems not to be.
As editor-in-chief of Jacobin, she aimed to discuss class questions more openly and openly criticized identity politics issues instead of class questions.
It is a small act of symbolic politics that Schwerdtner stated before the European elections that she would limit her “mandate salary to the average wage and give the rest to the party Die Linke and a social fund,” inspired by Lenin—a solidarity act that brought significant success to the Steiermark KPÖ.