Critique: The Left, Despite Everything, Merely a Paver of the Status Quo

“Without The Left Party, the most left-wing member in the Bundestag would be Robert Habeck.” And with it? A Jan van Aken. What this means — and what it doesn’t — this critique aims to outline.

Such a statement may be intended as an argument for the necessity of The Left Party, but it actually illustrates its substantive irrelevance. What exactly would be gained if a party sitting in parliament merely manages the capitalism with a social veneer?
The Bundestag is not a platform for fundamental social critique but the central institution of political dominance within the capitalist order. Its purpose is to preserve and shape this system — not to question or even overthrow it.
Anyone participating in this operation inevitably adopts its functional logic and goals or is prohibited beforehand.

The Left Party itself does not make any fundamental claims against these conditions. It merely demands a “more social” design of the market economy, thus remaining loyal to the system’s framework and rules that it claims to want to change. With its reform demands, it remains firmly within the constraints of parliamentary politics, which leaves no room for radical critique. Anyone claiming that this party is indispensable because it is the “last left voice” in parliament mainly reveals one thing: a resigned acceptance of the rules set by bourgeois democracy.

Parliamentarism: The Institutionalized Neutralization of Critique

The suggestion to use the Bundestag “merely” as a platform fails due to the structural function of parliamentary politics. This institution is not a neutral space where opposition positions can be freely articulated but a mechanism that channels and neutralizes contradictions. Even a party claiming to bring externally originating critique into the parliamentary framework is deformed by the necessities of majority formation, compromise, and vote-seeking.

The Left Party exemplifies this. Even without a serious claim to govern, it submits to the constraints typical of any democratic party: orientation towards voter support, adaptation to public discourse, and the renunciation of radical positions in favor of acceptable compromises. Even abstaining from government participation does not shield it from the necessity to pursue “realpolitik” — policies inherently limited to systemic improvements and unavoidable even without a ruling claim. What remains is a party serving as a valve for dissatisfaction, yet never able to push it beyond the bounds of the existing system.

Reformism: The Political Trivialization of the Capitalist Order

The core of reformism, embodied by The Left Party, is the illusion that capitalism could be shaped to be more social, just, or humane without fundamentally touching its foundations. Its demands are therefore necessarily moderate, aimed at not threatening the system’s pillars — private property, wage labor, competition. Reformism is not a bridge to a fundamental change of conditions but their ideological legitimation. It suggests that with the right political decisions, capitalism can be managed in a way that mitigates its destructive effects.

The Left Party thus functions less as an instrument of change and more as a stabilizer. By reducing dissatisfaction with existing conditions to system-compatible demands, it contributes to calming social conflicts. It ensures that capitalism appears as unavoidable — only in a “more social” variant. Those claiming this party is necessary because it protests against deportations or highlights social issues overlook that these are also part of its system-stabilizing role. Such moral appeals may soothe consciences, but they do nothing to change the fundamental relations producing these issues.

Furthermore, it is self-deception to depict the party, previously diagnosed as “unsuitable,” as indispensable in the next paragraph.

The Consequence of Parliamentarism: Integration Instead of Opposition

The idea that Marxists could use Parliament as a “mouthpiece” is based on a misconception of how bourgeois democracy functions. Parliament is not a stage for fundamental opposition but a mechanism that integrates social conflicts. Anyone involved submits to the constraints of this apparatus: the necessity to build majorities, make compromises, and adhere to the rules of democratic discourse. The result is a gradual adaptation, where radical critique is weakened and ultimately abandoned.

The Left Party demonstrates this exemplarily. Even without a serious claim to govern, it submits to the pressures typical of any democratic party: targeting voter support, adjusting to public discourse, and abandoning radical positions for acceptable compromises. Even abstaining from government participation does not protect it from the need to practice “realpolitik” — policies inherently limited to systemic improvements and unavoidable even without a governing ambition. What remains is a party serving as a vent for dissatisfaction, unable to push these frustrations beyond the boundaries of the existing system.

Better Ways of Agitation

Parliamentary politics are not only ineffective but counterproductive for any serious revolutionary movement due to their distorted analyses. Instead of falling into parliamentary illusions, political agitation should focus on extra-parliamentary organizations and theoretical work. Marxist journals, organizations, and movements offer far more opportunities to analyze the fundamental contradictions of capitalism and organize practical resistance.

The ballot for The Left Party, supposedly a tactical move, ultimately contributes to stabilizing the system. Voting for The Left Party legitimizes the capitalist order, which it does not challenge but merely seeks to make “more human.”

This is true despite the noble aim of wanting to “save” The Left. The ballot does not specify that it was filled out just for that purpose, nor does it imply rejection of bourgeois democracy as such. The ballot itself is not designed for that.

This form of reformism is not a step toward social emancipation but a reinforcement of the existing order. Deportations to Syria are not prevented simply because The Left condemns them morally. State power relations remain untouched as long as their foundations are not questioned.

Why There Is No Radical Party in Parliament

The article laments the absence of a radical party in the Bundestag that exposes the “fundamental mechanisms of the system.” But this observation is naive. Such a party does not exist because the bourgeois state does not tolerate radical opposition. Any party that seriously questions capitalism would either be banned or forced to moderate its positions so much that its radicality would be lost. Parliamentarism is designed to integrate or eliminate such tendencies.

Conclusion: There Is Nothing to Gain from The Left

The existence of The Left Party is not an argument for its legitimacy but a testament to the systemic function of reformism. It is part of the problem, not the solution. Its moral appeals and cosmetic reform demands stabilize capitalism by portraying it as reformable. Anyone genuinely committed to overcoming the prevailing conditions must reject parliamentarism and, consequently, The Left Party as well.

Those who vote “despite everything” today will find the same excuses tomorrow to participate in stabilizing the system. The Left Party can never have enough votes — and neither can the system it serves.