Podiumsdiskussion am 16.06.2016: Was ist Imperialismus? Warum sollten wir dagegen sein?
"Es ist sicherlich nicht einfach, das globale Kapital zu begreifen und ihm entgegenzutreten – in jedem Fall ist es von entscheidender Bedeutung, einen Internationalismus wieder herzustellen und neu zu formulieren, der ohne jeden Dualismus auskommt. Wer am verdinglichten Dualismus des Kalten Krieges festhält, läuft Gefahr, eine Politik zu treiben, die vom Standpunkt menschlicher Emanzipation, vom Standpunkt des »Kommunismus« aus, bestenfalls fragwürdig wäre, wie viele Menschen sie auch ansprechen mag."
- Moishe Postone "Geschichte und Ohnmacht" (2005)
Eine moderierte Podiumsdiskussion über Fragen des globalen Kapitals, Imperialismus und Krieg, die Möglichkeiten für progressive politische Opposition und die Probleme und Aufgaben einer Linken in einer Welt nach dem "Kalten Krieg" und nach "9/11", wie sie durch die Invasion und Besetzung von Afghanistan und Irak und den militärischen Interventionen in Libyen, Jemen und Syrien gestellt wurden.
Mit:
Manfred Dahlmann (Ca ira, sans phrase)
Matthias (Gruppe Arbeitermacht, Liga für die 5. Internationale)
Jan Schröder (Platypus)
Zeit: 16.06.2016 // 18.00 - 21.00 Uhr
Ort: Festsaal, Studierendenhaus Campus Bockenheim, Frankfurt am Main
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/1032915593412226/
Panelists (in order of presentations):
Neil Davenport - Institute of Ideas / Spiked
Mike Macnair - Communist Party of Great Britain / Weekly Worker
Gerry Downing - Socialist Fight
Panel Description:
A united and peaceful Europe seemed to be a distant dream for a generation which went through the experience of war and destruction. In the latter part of the 20th century, this hope gained shape in the new realities of the European Union. Despite its official proclamation of peace, social well being and an “alternative to capitalism and communism”, today the project finds itself in a prolonged crisis with uncertain expectations. The refugee crisis, the Euro-crisis, massive austerity and the increasing interference into democratic principles, a growing division between powerful and weak economies, and Germany's new hegemony appear in stark contrast to the official slogans of “European values and solidarity”. The desperate struggle of SYRIZA demonstrated the necessity and seeming impossibility of the Left across Europe to answer with a politics that would be truly international and go beyond “resisting austerity.”Despite growing social unrest, the deep ambivalence towards the EU expresses itself in the inability of the Left to formulate a coherent vision of a political alternative. Should it be overcome on the basis of the EU itself, or against the EU? The clarification of its nature and appropriate responses seem to be one of the most pressing issues for the Left on the continent and beyond.
Questions:
1. The EU ideologically relies on defining itself as a project of pacifism (peace in Europe) and a “third way” politics of a “social market economy”. What do you make of these claims? Should the Left be fighting for the fulfillment of the promise of the EU? How would you characterize the evolution and realization of the EU project in light of its foundational claims?
2. How can the project of the EU be described in political and economic terms? Is it an “imperialist” project? If so, who are the “Imperialists”? Is the EU a “neoliberal” project? If so, to what end? What do these terms clarify? What would an anti-neoliberal or anti-imperialist politics entail?
3. What are the driving forces behind the EU and what are the implications for a Left politics in Europe? Can the EU be ‘pushed to the Left’ or is it a project against the Left?
4. Today, the Left’s response to the Euro-crisis has mostly confined itself to nation states. Yet, the EU represents a “transnational” project. How does this affect the nature of internationalism for the Left? Is this an opportunity yet to be realized, or does the EU represent an obstacle to a true international?
5. SYRIZA was seen as an indicator of shifting political and economic forces in the EU, yet the Left in stronger economies has remained weak. What did its election reveal? What has the Brexit question revealed about the European Left and its tasks? How do both of these affect the dynamic of the EU and how do they task the greater Left?
Platypus London invites you to our inaugural public forum event at the London School of Economics on what Brexit means for the Left.
**TIME 7pm, Wednesday 8th June**
**ROOM: Tower 2, 9th floor, room 9.05**
Panelists:
Neil Davenport - Institute of Ideas / Spiked
Gerry Downing - Socialist Fight
Sacha Ismail - Alliance for Workers' Liberty
Mike Macnair - Communist Party of Great Britain / Weekly Worker
Panel Description:
A united and peaceful Europe seemed to be a distant dream for a generation which went through the experience of war and destruction. In the latter part of the 20th century, this hope gained shape in the new realities of the European Union. Despite its official proclamation of peace, social well being and an “alternative to capitalism and communism”, today the project finds itself in a prolonged crisis with uncertain expectations. The refugee crisis, the Euro-crisis, massive austerity and the increasing interference into democratic principles, a growing division between powerful and weak economies, and Germany's new hegemony appear in stark contrast to the official slogans of “European values and solidarity”. The desperate struggle of SYRIZA demonstrated the necessity and seeming impossibility of the Left across Europe to answer with a politics that would be truly international and go beyond “resisting austerity.”
Despite growing social unrest, the deep ambivalence towards the EU expresses itself in the inability of the Left to formulate a coherent vision of a political alternative. Should it be overcome on the basis of the EU itself, or against the EU? The clarification of its nature and appropriate responses seem to be one of the most pressing issues for the Left on the continent and beyond.
Questions:
1. The EU ideologically relies on defining itself as a project of pacifism (peace in Europe) and a “third way” politics of a “social market economy”. What do you make of these claims? Should the Left be fighting for the fulfillment of the promise of the EU? How would you characterize the evolution and realization of the EU project in light of its foundational claims?
2. How can the project of the EU be described in political and economic terms? Is it an “imperialist” project? If so, who are the “Imperialists”? Is the EU a “neoliberal” project? If so, to what end? What do these terms clarify? What would an anti-neoliberal or anti-imperialist politics entail?
3. What are the driving forces behind the EU and what are the implications for a Left politics in Europe? Can the EU be ‘pushed to the Left’ or is it a project against the Left?
4. Today, the Left’s response to the Euro-crisis has mostly confined itself to nation states. Yet, the EU represents a “transnational” project. How does this affect the nature of internationalism for the Left? Is this an opportunity yet to be realized, or does the EU represent an obstacle to a true international?
5. SYRIZA was seen as an indicator of shifting political and economic forces in the EU, yet the Left in stronger economies has remained weak. What did its election reveal? What has the Brexit question revealed about the European Left and its tasks? How do both of these affect the dynamic of the EU and how do they task the greater Left?
Freitag, 27. Mai 2016, 19:00 Uhr
Neues Institutsgebäude, Universitätsstraße 7, 1010 Wien, Hörsaal 3
Mit:
Hanna Lichtenberger (Mosaik-Blog)
Sebastian Kugler (Sozialistische LinksPartei)
Ursula Jensen (Internationale Bolschewistische Tendenz)
Kurzfristig abgesagt: Dieter Alexander Behr (Afrique Europe Interact, Forum Civique Européen und viele andere Netzwerke und Initiativen)
"Heute scheint die Idee der politischen Partei als Mittel für die Linke – durch die sich in der Gesellschaft die Notwendigkeit von sozialen Umwälzungen entwickeln ließe – im Gegensatz zur politischen Partei als Selbstzweck theoretisch wie praktisch kaum greifbar. Doch die bestehende Alternative – Politik ohne Partei – scheint zu nichts in der Lage zu sein, als die Launen den Kapitalismus zu billigen, durch welche er sich verändert, doch unweigerlich bestehen bleibt. Schlimmer noch, ohne eigene Parteien ist die Linke dazu gezwungen, passiv oder aktiv andere Parteien zu unterstützen oder zumindest Hoffnungen in diese zu setzen. Es scheint unmöglich, die Frage der politischen Partei zu vermeiden."