France: The New People’s Ecological and Social Union and the political independence of the far-left

Launch of NUPES, source: www.melechon.fr

Lisbeth Latham

On May 5, the National Council of the Parti Socialiste (PS) announced that it had agreed to participate in a joint election ticket with much of France’s electoral left, via the formation of the New People's Ecologist and Social Union (NUPES) in the June legislative elections. NUPES is made up of the France Insoumise, the PS, the Parti Communiste (PCF), Europe Ecologie Les Vertes (The Greens), Génération.s (the party founded by Benoît Hamon, the PS 2017 presidential candidate in the wake of the 2017 legislative elections), and other smaller formations around these larger groups. The emergence of this electoral union follows Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s strong performance in the first round of the presidential elections. Polls suggest the bloc could emerge as either the opposition to Macron’s parliamentary supporters or if the momentum continues to build that they could be in a position to form a government following the second round. As much as this is seen as the most united the French left has been, the French far-left in the form of the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA) and Workers Struggle (LO) remain aloof, with some raising concerns that this could undermine the ability of NUPES to reach the second round in some constituencies. In this piece, I will look at why this aloofness is a consistent position for the NPA and LO, and, at least in the case of the NPA, is not simply a reflection sectarian on the NPA’s part but instead, a continuity of the party’s position in the ongoing debate within France left on the what political basis to build a united left to challenge neoliberalism.

Mélenchon's performance in the presidential election first round
Mélenchon won 21.95% of the vote in the first round, coming in third behind Marcron (27.85%) and Le Pen (23.15%). This built on his performance in 2017 (19.6%) and 2012 (11.1%) and was the highest vote for a candidate to the left of social democracy ever (Jacques Duclos received 21.27% of the vote for the PCF in the 1969 election). However, it was in the context of a continuation of the historically low vote for the left of centre (left candidates totalled 27.31% of the vote in 2012, compared with a total vote of 43.75% in the first round of the 2012 elections).

At the launch of the NUPES’ election campaign on May 7, Mélenchon told the crowd:

“It is the first time in twenty-five years that a general agreement has been reached between all the forces of the traditional left, environmentalists and the youngest, the “rebellious”

“We had to lose the thread and have to weave it again so that, under our responsibility, we succeeded.

“What had not been done either by the leftist cartels, or by the Popular Front, or by May 68, or by the common program, we did it”

Basis of unity
The initiative to build a common left electoral block was initiated by France Insoumise reaching out to all left parties. The negotiations between left groups has given rise to essentially a unity platform for the election. This includes (the full accord is available here:

• Increasing the minimum wage to 1,400 euros net (currently 1302); 
• The creation of a youth autonomy allowance; 
• The right to retire at age 60 for all; 
• Freezing the prices of basic necessities; 
• The strengthening and generalization of employee representation on boards of directors; 
• The repeal of the El Khomri Law and other counter-reforms of the Labour Code; 
• The affirmation of an imperative of ecological justice; 
• The development of public services, the refusal of their privatization or their opening up to competition, the creation of a public service for early childhood and support for old age; 
• The implementation of fairer taxation with, in particular, the restoration of the ISF and the repeal of the flat tax; The repeal of security laws that infringe on our individual freedoms; 
• Real equality in the overseas territories, the right to water and the promotion of the Overseas Territories as the outposts of the ecological and solidarity bifurcation; 
• The adoption of a housing shield in order to limit the share of income devoted to housing, in particular by controlling rents downwards throughout the territory and the production of social housing;

Building momentum and hope
Both Mélenchon’s performance, and the emergence of the NUPES, have given rise to hope that will translate into the possibility of building a substantially bigger united left vote - that will at the very least increase the capacity of NUPES candidates to qualify for the second round and potentially win seats - including increasing the capacity of its constituents parts to increase their number of seats. The coalition currently holds 42 out of 577 seats in the National Assembly, but if their vote was consolidated they could be in a position to be the main opposition voice to Macron and his Ensemble! (not to be mistaken for Ensemble which is a far-left grouping within FI) if it forms government, or as some are hopeful based on initial polling the possibility of NUPES forming a government with Melenchon as prime minister and thus side-line Macron as president. A Radio France Internationale report that a recent Ipsos poll showed “56 per cent of voters wanted Macron to lose the legislative and go into a "cohabitation" with the left, while 57 per cent supported the left uniting to field joint candidates”. More recent polls have suggested that NUPES could receive the largest vote in the first round, how this would translate into seats in the Nationally Assembly would be heavily dependent on how the voters who back eliminated candidates in the first round allocate their votes in the second.

LO and NPA aloof
Much of the focus on parties that are standing apart from NUPES has focused on far-left parties Workers Struggle (LO) and the New Anticapitalist Party (NPA), although they are by no means the only forces standing apart with a number of PS candidates who are not in the seats that were allocated to the PS under the NUPES agreement announcing they will still stand. This focus on both LO and the NPA is primarily aimed at casting their refusal to join as being a consequence of them simply being sectarian Trotskyist forces. While this may the case with LO, who in response to the NPA’s request for discussions regarding the legislative elections, noted the NPA were involved in the discussions regarding the formation of NUPES saying:

“You present yourself as "the left of the left" with the project of "rebuilding a real left" to surf both on the disappointment of the government left and on unitary aspirations. We seek to build a revolutionary communist workers' party, totally independent of the reformist leaderships.”

These criticisms do not accurately reflect the orientation of the NPA to the process, or its criticisms, at least initially, of the new formation. The NPA was willing to meet with the FI leadership regarding joining what would become NUPES. With the NPA indicating in a statement on April 24, that they would have been willing to participate in a joint slate based on the proposed common platform - however, their hesitancy to participate was framed on the basis of who else Mélenchon and FI were willing to include, most notably the PS, their focus on securing Mélenchon the prime ministership rather than NPA’s focus on building extra-parliamentary power via the elections, a power which would be necessary regardless of whether NUPES are able to form a government. With the adherence of the PS to NUPES, the NPA ruled out participation in the coalition, as Philippe Poutou, NPA presidential candidate, said, “the NPA understood that in the end, its presence was not really desired by La France Insoumise”.

In a statement issued by the NPA national political council on May 5, they declared their orientation to NUPES candidates 

“In any case, we will call for a vote and support, including actively, the left-wing candidates of the NUPES, and we will not stand candidates against them. In other constituencies, against candidates labelled NUPES who embody a continuity with social liberalism, the NPA will seek, where the conditions are met, to give voice to an alternative, though unitive candidates, from the workplaces and working-class neighbourhoods, representing a fighting left, independent of institutions and social liberalism.”

The NPA has subsequently announced that it will stand 10 candidates formally as the NPA, which has resulted in public criticism from the “Spark” faction within the party, who declared on May 26, that its members would only support direct candidates of the NPA or LO, and criticised the NPA’s leadership of maintaining illusions in NUPES.

A break with social liberalism?
The NPA drawing a hardline regarding the participation of the PS in NUPES should come as no surprise. This is not just about the reality of the PS government from 2012 in refusing to reverse the Sarkozy’s 2010 increase of the pension age, which is now a central aspect of the coalition’s platform, or the significant attacks on workers seen in the El Khomri law (which NUPES pledges to overturn) that were passed in 2016. The NPA, and its precursor the Revolutionary Communist League (LCR), have had as its principal position for joining any joint electoral project, running through the discussion around both a united candidate of the left (2007) and the creation of the Left Front (2010) and all subsequent unity projects, which has been complete political independence from social liberalism in the form of the PS. The NPA/LCR has seen the willingness, particularly of the PCF, to enter into governments with the PS that have carried out attacks on social spending and workers’ rights as a key factor contributing not only to the collapse of the PS’s vote but to the position of parties to the left of the PS, particularly the PCF an issue that would come into sharp relief if either NUPES are the primary opposition party, but even more so if they were to form government reliant on the vote of PS deputies.

Prior to the PS’s national council meeting, over 1000 PS members signed an open letter against participation in NUPES, and historic leaders, such as former President François Hollande, have spoken against the union, arguing it is a “betrayal of his legacy”, which is undoubtedly the case. In response to the decision by the PS to join NUPES Carole Delopes, the president of the Occitaine region, issued a call to rally all those PS members who are opposed to the "liquidation of the party". Sections of the right have also called on the PS to run instead with them. All of this will present ongoing pressure not only on the PS electorate but also on PS deputies once elected. A key way this resistance was overcome has been both the PS and EELV being offered substantially more constituencies to stand in, particularly winnable constituencies than they would have been entitled to under initial proposals based on a proportional distribution of constituencies based on the component party’s performance in the presidential elections.

The problem of abstentionism in the working class
The refusal of LO and the NPA to join NUPES and instead run their own candidates has raised concerns that this might result in some NUPES candidates not qualifying for the second round - interestingly the role of anti-NUPES PS candidates is not being raised in these same discussions. While this may be the case in some constituencies where LO and/or the NPA might poll well, the reality is that both parties' electoral base is small - both polling less than 1% nationally. Also, because of the relatively small size, there would be no guarantee that all those who would vote for these far-left parties would follow them if they were to join NUPES - at least a section of the voters being protests against the system rather than party loyalty. More importantly, in concentrating on the potential spoiler role that LO or the NPA might play in the first round, commentators are ignoring the much bigger challenge for the left - which is to substantially eat into what is currently one of the largest voting blocs in the French working class … those who abstain from the elections entirely. This bloc, both those who refused to vote, or spoiled their vote, constituted 28.51% of the vote in the first round of the presidential elections. Shifting a solid proportion of these voters would have a significant impact on NUPES performance, far more than the less than half million votes that LO and the NPA received in the presidential elections.

Whatever the outcome of the legislative elections on June 12 and 19, the real test for France’s left will come following the elections. Either in building a consistent opposition to Macron as an opposition bloc in both the parliament and in the streets, or if results deliver a left government, the challenge of attempting to change France, which will face opposition not only from the right internationally and in France, but also, rising tensions in perspective within the left itself.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.

Read more...

France: NPA's Olivier Besancenot calls on all anti-capitalist forces to "act collectively"

Tuesday, June 11, 2019
Pierre Duquesne
l'Humanite

"I would be annoyed to make the umpteenth unitary call," warned Olivier Besancenot. Yes but here it is: the radical left resembles, in the aftermath of the Europeans, a "field of ruins". This is why the spokesman of the Parti Nouveau Anticapitaliste (NPA) on Sunday called "all those camps the resistant to Macron and to the far right" to act and to be heard "together". He invites the militants of France Insoumise, the Lutte Ovrière, the libertarian organizations, the Générations, the Communist Party, the anti-fascist organizations, the ecologists, the district militants, the syndicalists and all those who find themselves "intuitively in a space both anti-capitalist and internationalist policies" to "collective action". "What we miss is not a captain, a coach. It is to act together, " urged the spokesman of the NPA. As for the RN (National Rally [Marine Le Pen's new party]), "the worst enemy of the working class", its strength is explained above all by "the weakness of the left forces".

Read more...

Olivier Besancenot: "Emancipation rather than rebellion"

By Bénito Perez
Originally published in Le Courrier
26 November 2017

The face of the radical left in France during the 2000s, the anti-capitalist activist took a step back but keeps a sharp eye on the political and social field.

Is it because Olivier Besancenot had never come to Lausanne? A large crowd on the night waiting to hear the spokesman of the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste (New Anti-Capitalist Party - NPA) on Monday, November 13 for a fruitful evening exchange at Espace Dickens. The 200 people clustered in the small room Lausanne contrasts with the alienation experienced on the other side of the border, by the movement that succeeded the Revolutionary Communist League. It must be said that the former postman of Neuilly, twice a candidate for the French presidency in 2002 and 2007 (with more than 4% of the vote each time), now moved behind the counter at the Post Office, and in the shadow Philippe Poutou of the NPA, has lost none of his verve and his way with words. For two hours, he captivated his audience, plumping the shaky morals, deflating illusions of no future. Good grace, he even lent the little provocation guests: phosphorous on the success of France Rebellious (France Insoumise - FI) (where the NPA had failed), in the gathering of much of the left behind the single plume of Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Echos.

Being rebellious in France today?
"Being rebellious is to refuse to obey the economic oligarchy and the political and cultural class that impose an unsustainable situation that is France and wider Europe. It is denied that the public coffers are empty to benefit the rich and businesses and then justify the sacrifices imposed on the vast majority of the population. For thirty years, this policy allows capital to take even more work. This will not stop itself. After attacking taxation and public services, they now weaken labour law and social security, tomorrow they will denounce too many paid holidays. They always have something to undermine at work to give the capital".


Where is Emmanuel Macron? 
"Emmanuel Macron and his men know perfectly the fragility of their political legitimacy. They know they have benefited from simultaneous attacks from the right and the left. That is why they are acting by ordinances. And quickly. Macron has understood that social and security issues are linked. The inclusion of the state of emergency law and the adoption at a run of the labour code reform are two sides of the same coin. When conducting an unpopular social policy, we know that there will be trouble and they are preparing repression. 

"Macron and social forces he represents have decided to pursue the second. For them, the time of cyclical market reforms has passed, it is now to tackle the structures. The crisis of capitalism, which we saw explode in 2008 but which persists, requires urgent deep "reforms". We have always seen a crisis of overproduction and over-accumulation. Their solution, which of course is not one, through the optimization of the power of capital over labour. Since Sarkozy, all presidents have made this political contradiction: 'France is on the brink. It is urgent to move ahead '! 

"Obviously, they realize that their promises do not come true, that the productivity gains that liberal reforms would bring are not benefits to workers. But they have their explanation: it is the fault of "zombie capital", this small charming name they give to non-performing economic sectors considered. Where reforms have not yet tendered their benefits, unlike other sectors. Hence the need to continue privatization, etc., etc. " 

The Front National risk 

"The vast majority of French are unhappy with the policy. But the default alternative for lack of better alternative, their anger is not expressed, it steeps. Or when they speak, they speak badly. The country where I come from is going through a terrible political, social and moral period, which is extremely tense. The leadership crisis within the FN does not eliminate the risk of the extreme right, because its ideas, is deeply rooted as the default alternative. Despite a bad campaign, the FN received 11 and a half million votes! 

"In this context, insubordination also means daring to fight against this nauseating atmosphere. Being clear on our values. Showing our support for the mass naturalisation of undocumented workers, and explain why. At the risk of losing votes at first. " 

Crisis of the Left 

"The weakening of the left and of the social movement, it's a collective trust issue more than collective consciousness. Part of the radical left think the exploited did not understand their situation and need to have it explained to them. For me, it's the opposite. They do not have professors red or pink, green or black: they are better placed than anyone to see that the system is crazy, unequal and based on the exploitation and discrimination. The problem is whether to have the conviction that anything else is possible. In France, we have not had a victorious major social struggle since 2006 and the contract of first employment. It was millions in the streets, attempted strikes renewable, but we lost! All over. 

"Still, the crisis goes well beyond France, everywhere the labour movement is disintegrating, everywhere the power relations deteriorate and populist movements and far-right are progressing. To the left, Greece was the big missed opportunity. We need to take stock. Why for example, when Syriza had moderated its claims, has it been crushed? " 

Towards unity of action 

"Rebellion cannot be imagined without emancipation. We are not up against a power in order to submit to a leader. The only form of authority that we should recognize is collective and pluralistic. We tried to convey this to the leadership of FI. There are signs that it begins to perceive it. Given the situation of the social movement, the urgency for organizations of the radical left, the movement which spans from Benoît Hamon [former socialist presidential candidate, ed] to Mélenchon, the Communist Party to Workers Struggle must convene soon and formalize our united agreement for the withdrawal of the Labor law and ordinances. 

The FI has a special responsibility because it has 19% [in the presidential elections], and gathered huge crowds, including a lot of militants ready to fight. A new radical social movement is now emerging. You see it in ecology movement, in the struggles of migrants, anti-nuclear, even in the labour movement. But the FI can not represent them all. Impossible. I never could. Sing the Marseillaise? You must not ask me, I could not! But that's okay, we can still do great things together!". 

Islamophobia 

"In part, the stigma of the Muslim community in France is not surprising. This country has been unable to do its work addressing its colonial history and the Algerian Revolution. On the other hand, it must be noted that part of the left is in the process of falling into stigmatising the community. It says something about the degree of regression of the public debate in France! 

"That said, the debate is not simple: how to reconcile the defence of secularism, women's rights and the fight against Islamophobia? The discussion runs through the left and even the NPA. " 

Wanting to govern 

"Although we have been describing it for years, we have not quite believed in the depth of the crisis of the system. If an alternative is needed, then we need to presume to govern. And think seriously about the policy we could take against our two enemies: the state and capital equipment. Take the latter: we must not tell stories, it will not be stripped so that we can finance the beautiful social program on which we would be elected. If we do not ask the question of the property accumulated by capital, we will never bend them. And it is not enough to create a public bank which remains subject to private competition: it will never argue in public service. This implies indeed an expropriation of the banks and the creation of a monopoly. 

"The state apparatus, too, will not just give up. That's why we put on the table the idea of de-professionalization of politics (limitation and revocation of mandates, revenue cap). Change does not happen just by changing the heads on top of the state. It will do that by involving everyone. 

"If you do not want the bureaucratic body separated from the rest of society, one must be aware of his total character, rooted in deep phenomena as the division of labour, the separation of manual and intellectual tasks or as professionalisation of power. Most people have internalized the idea that they could not represent themselves. That intermediaries are needed. That politics is a matter for serious people. When we introduce a postman or an autoworker for president, they say it's great ... but not credible. We must break this straitjacket. Speaking today, is the first act of resistance. Refusing to let others take it for us, this is the first act of emancipation. " 

THE NPA STILL ALIVE AND "ESSENTIAL" 

The NPA is the direct heir of the famous Communist League, which will be banned in the wake of May 68 and the Revolutionary Communist League. The formation founded by Alain Krivine and Daniel Bensaïd, member of the Fourth International (Trotskyist), had known, after the ebb of the 1980s, a certain success since the mid-1990s, driven by the emergence of the alternative globalisation movement and large strike movements (1995-2006) in France against the social security reforms or the First Employment Contract. 

Scuttling 

After the success in 2005 of the unitary campaign of the left against the European Constitutional Treaty and both candidates rather successful Olivier Besancenot presidential (2002 and 2007), the LCR nevertheless chose to scuttle to give birth in February 2009, a New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA), meant to break organizational barriers between the various traditions of the radical left. But after a promising start, the LCR / NPA from 4000 to 10 000 members, the young party ebbs quickly. 

"We made the mistake of believing that alone we could collect all the left of the French left. But it is far too diverse and committed to its banner to gather in this way, "admits Besancenot today. 

Divided on strategic issues but also on political issues such as secularism, the new formation seen swathes leave, especially to the Left Front, where defectors formed the organisation "Ensemble!" 

"The NPA was on the verge put the key under the door, " says Besancenot. Especially since the party in vogue in the 2000s was sidelined in the presidential elections in 2012 and 2017, where its worker candidate Philippe Poutou harvest only a small percent of the vote, while the rebellious Jean-Luc Mélenchon flirts with second round. 

A new start 

Still, the relatively successful campaign of the Ford worker has e given new impetus to the movement. "I am proud to have campaigned Philip," said the former candidate. "I had a great time when he made the big candidates sweat on the television set, we were the only ones who can tell them what people dreamed of sending them across because we are not professional politicians. For that alone, the NPA must continue to exist! " 

And after the country has strengthened this conviction. "France Unbowed is trying to achieve in turn it is unable to unify the left. Moreover, its very directive behaviour on the social movement has been catastrophic. The NPA, we refuse to prioritize political and social over one another, we aspire to a merger of these themes but with respect for freedom of association ", defends the NPA spokesman. 

The future of the left of the left 

But the postman from the eighteenth arrondissement of Paris insists the future of the left of the left exceed the scope of its movement. "We must find a common area of action, combining democracy and maintaining our autonomy, our identities. Neither France Unbowed nor the NPA cannot do this, we have to invent something else", concludes Besancenot. 

 

Read more...

France: Indefence of the NPA's struggle against Islamophobia

The fight against Islamophobia: When Lutte Ouvrière Reverses the Hierarchy of Standards
by Julien Salingue, Christine Poupin, Ugo Palheta, Selma Oumari
Originally published February 2 on npa2009.org

On January 15, Lutte Ouvrière (LO) posted on its website[1] an (unsigned) article "The trap of the “fight against Islamophobia”", drawn from the most recent issue of their monthly magazine Lutte de Classe. Anyone who has followed the positions and analyses of LO concerning the "debates on Islam", which have regularly shaken up the French political field for the last fifteen years, would not have been surprised at the substance of the "Argument”. But LO's arguments and reasoning, not to mention its attacks on individuals and organisations, merit attention ... and deserve a response.

Fight against the fight against Islamophobia
We know LO's precision and rigor, and cannot fail to notice that the use of quotation marks in the title of the article is not trivial: "The trap of the "fight against Islamophobia ". The problem is not, therefore, the term "Islamophobia", the relevance of which LO has regularly challenged, but the "fight against Islamophobia" itself. This is confirmed by the content of the article, whose target is not those who defend the use of the term "Islamophobia" but those who intend to combat Islamophobic violence and discrimination.

It is indeed a novelty: even if LO continues to call the term "Islamophobia" "ambiguous", we are no longer in the phrasing of 2010[2], when we read that " Islamophobia often implies a rejection of all those who share the Muslim faith, which is a nonsense, not only when it refers to the attitude of the revolutionary communists, but even as regards the attitude of French imperialism and those who serve it at the highest level ". Indeed, LO recognizes the existence of discrimination against Muslims, and even adopts the formula "specific oppression": "A part of the French political class currently rejects and discriminates Muslims, at least the poor, those of cities and factories, for it certainly does not reject the billionaires of the Gulf theocracies. And it is understandable that many young people feel they are victims of a specific oppression, which does exist."

It will be noted here that some formulations remain "ambiguous", but even if LO does not recognize or explain this evolution, it is clear that from "the nonsense" to "specific oppression", the path has been traveled In recent years, probably because of the increasingly visible rise of Islamophobia, gained strength after the attacks of 2015-2016. But it is not the least of the paradoxes that we can not find in the rest of the text any analysis of the development of this oppression that constitutes Islamophobia, nor any concrete proposals to combat stigmatization, discrimination and violence targeting Specifically Muslims (or presumed as such). Instead, LO engages in a widely ignorant diatribe of debates and work on the issue [3], thus aiming to legitimize in advance those who are fighting these fights, and to propose as their only perspective the fight against religion in general, and Islamic fundamentalism in particular.

This was accompanied by recurring attacks against the Nouveau parti anticapitaliste (New Anti-Capitalist Party - NPA), which was accused of "demonstrating a good deal of demagogy towards Islam " and implicitly abandoning any framework of Marxist analysis.

Statements of intent and ill-adjusted attacks
In a first step, the article of LO undertakes to list various initiatives organized by the "anti-Islamophobia galaxy" (gatherings, meetings, conferences, etc.) and to demonstrate, by "presenting" that these initiatives were "forums for Islamist and communalist organizations", with the support of a part of the extreme left. LO specifies its objective: "These different initiatives do not necessarily lend themselves to criticism. The question is who organizes these initiatives, what ideas they express, and what activists who call themselves extreme left do and say at them. A mere declaration of intent, for even by reading the article carefully, one will never know "what ideas have been expressed" in these initiatives, nor what the militants of the extreme left "did or said".

Instead, a series of attacks on some of the organizations and individuals associated with these gatherings or rallies will be necessary, which, if they contain some of the criticisms we can share, testify above all to the profound ignorance regarding these organizations, or even a propensity for selectivity that borders on bad faith. Thus we learn that the Collectif contre l’islamophobie en France (Collective against Islamophobia in France - CCIF) could be summarized by the fact that one of its spokesmen, Marwan Muhammad, is a "former stock trader" who once held a common platform with a fundamentalist imam, signed texts with a leader of a conservative association and "[he] affirmed that polygamy did not concern him". That's all? That's all.

We will not know "what ideas" the CCIF defends in the initiatives complained about (against Islamophobia or the state of emergency), and one will not know either, which is not surprising coming from LO , Which is not in the habit of forgetting to propose class analyses, that this "communalist organisation" pronounced, last spring, against the Labor Law, and called for mobilisations against it . No mention was also made of the statement signed in April 2016[4] by the then CCIF spokesman Yasser Louati, who criticized Valls' anti-social policy and accused him of trying to "mask his budget" by a Speech stigmatizing Muslims. Finally, there is no mention of the article published on the CCIF website last November, whose explicit title should not have escaped LO: "Burkini fiasco: A distraction from the attack of El Khomri’s Work Law on workers.
A few lines are also devoted to the Union des organisations islamiques de France (Union of Islamic Organizations of France - UOIF), present during one of the incriminated initiatives: the meeting of 6 March 2015 "against Islamophobia and the climate of war security", during which, Let us specify it since LO forgets to do so, the UOIF did not take the floor. But LO does not need to talk about the slogans of the meeting, nor about the content of the speeches: only the presence among the signatories of the UOIF is sufficient. Again, the demonstration is a little short. Or it will be necessary for LO to explain why, in October 2004, one could find on its site an invitation to join a demonstration "against anti-Semitism, racism and all discrimination" whose appeal had been signed by many organizations, among others LO and ... the UOIF. Was it because LO felt that the issue was important and the slogans relevant? Probably. Does this mean that for LO the fight against discrimination against Muslims and against the "climate of war security" would be a lesser challenge? It would seem that the answer is yes.

False arguments, real pretexts
The "arguments" of Lutte Ouvrière are in fact very weak, and more resemble pretexts to justify non-involvement in the struggle against Islamophobia. The article is in fact incapable of reporting a single pronounced sentence or a single idea defended during these various initiatives, which would make it possible to qualify the latter as "communalist" or "Islamist" rallies. Obviously, it is not a question of adopting an acritic position in relation to the positions defended by these or other initiatives, but in this case LO ignores these positions - to take an interest in the "ideas which express themselves there". What were these ideas? A critique of the government's discriminatory, authoritarian and war policies, a denunciation of racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, solidarity with oppressed peoples, etc. One reality, everyone will admit, poorly adjusted to the political and theoretical framework of LO. Unless it is the other way round?

We will spare ourselves here, even if we are tempted to do too much about the three lines devoted to the gathering organized on January 18 in Paris against Islamophobia:
"At the rally of January 18, 2015, young people waving flags Algerian, Turkish, Moroccan, panels bearing suras of the Qur’an, and a large banner: "Touch not my prophet". Commentaries worthy of an article by L'Express or the pitiful attempts to delegitimise, on the part of the Zionist mouth pieces, demonstrations in support of the Palestinian people. In this respect, one can not fail to notice that the method of trying to detect at any price the traces of "Islamic fundamentalism" within the fronts of the struggle against Islamophobia is, to be mistaken, similar to the methods of those who try to detect at any price traces of anti-Semitism within the fronts of fighting the policy of the State of Israel. "The current campaign should not make the revolutionaries lose any compass," LO told us at the beginning of his article. We can here only return the compliment to him.

Behind these pretexts, it is difficult not to perceive the total lack of will on the part of LO to mobilize concretely against Islamophobia and to participate in fronts alongside organizations whose anti-capitalists and revolutionaries can also be very distant. A policy which LO is able to carry out when the "cause" seems to him to be just, without requiring certificates of good conduct from all the components of the front, even if he sometimes renounces certain principles that seem suddenly intangible when he " Is working with Muslim organizations.

It will be remembered that on March 6, 2004, LO had the choice to parade, during the annual mobilization for the International Day for the rights of women, in the procession organized by the association Ni putes ni soumises (Neither whores nor subjects - NPNS), which had refused to sign the appeal of the Collectif national pour les droits des femmes (National Collective for Women's Rights - CNDF). Fadela Amara then explained: "Today, the priority is to defend the values of the secular Republic, not to stand against the government[5]. LO, who felt that the urgency of the day, in the midst of a "veil debate", was to express solidarity with women denouncing Islamic fundamentalism, decided to march with the "defenders of the Values of the secular Republic ", and Arlette Laguiller thus found herself, in the lead contingent, alongside, among others, Nicole Guedj, then Minister of the Chirac-Raffarin-Sarkozy government, known to stand on every occasion on the side of the exploited and the oppressed. Strange compass, that of LO ...

The "race" and "white feminism": theoretical confusion ... voluntary?
The "targeted attacks" of LO are, as we have seen, are very awkward and unconvincing, in particular in that they reveal indignations - and principles - of variable geometry, and ignorance of the actors and actions of the "galaxy of anti-Islamophobia ". It is probably to mask these paradoxes and ignorance that the article develops, in a second step, an argument that is more "theoretical", especially regarding the concepts of "race" and "white feminism", but also of the Marxist analysis of religious phenomenon.

Concerning race, LO pretends to believe that to speak of "racialised" implies to affirm the existence of the races in the biological sense, and thus to align themselves with the extreme right (although the extreme right has now swapped its biological racism for a cultural racism much more accepted in the political field). The social implications - both material and ideological - of racism, which are manifested in a systematic inequality of treatment between whites and non-whites, in other words the social construction of white domination and a division which tends to become structural within the proletariat, between those who suffer racist discrimination and those who, on the contrary, are not the object of it.

To deny these social implications is to deny racism and to refuse to see that, according to whether one appears white or not (and one knows how the fact of being identified as Muslim-Sarkozy had spoken of the " Muslim appearance"- can immediately shift to being non-white, access to a job (and especially to a properly paid, stable job, etc.), or housing, will be very uneven. They will not receive equal treatment from institutions (particularly by the police), suffering regular harassment, even humiliation, and so on. The non-existence of biological races in no way implies the absence of oppression and social divisions on the basis of skin color or religion.

Speaking of "racialised" or "social races", political anti-racist activists (but also many human and social scientists) say nothing other than the persistence of racism and material divisions which it creates, consolidates and reproduces within the very bosom of the popular classes. This is not a purely theoretical debate, because a practical consequence immediately follows from this: to put an end to these divisions, it is not enough simply to remove the word "race" with a stroke of the pen, or to banish it from its vocabulary "(as the LO article says); strange way, for so-called materialists, to believe in the power of words (or their absence). In order to put an end to "races" (in the social sense), that is to say, with racial divisions and discrimination, we must end racism as an institutionalized system!

If LO is incapable of admitting the persistence of racial groups (which are the products of racism), but also of structural inequalities of gender, linked to sexuality or disadvantage, it is probably that this simple fact denies the idea of a homogeneous working class that a party could embody through mobilization in the workplace alone. Far from concealing this domination under the carpet of workers' unity, denying or minimizing the implications of this oppression, anti-capitalists and revolutionaries must put them at the heart of their action in order to achieve class unity on the basis of an equality between its various components. This requires active support in the self-organization of the oppressed, as well as the defense of the democratic demands that emerge. Whether it is for women, people who are victims of homophobia, people with disabilities, transphobia, etc., our principle is the right to organise, and if they wish autonomously. The emancipation of the oppressed will be the work of the oppressed themselves!

This constant attention to oppression - in all its forms and in all strata of society, as Lenin argued[6] - is a strategic necessity for addressing the most oppressed but also often the most combative elements of the proletariat. In this sense, the existence and development of women-led feminist organisations, as well as other self-organisation, and therefore potentially autonomous, initiatives such as the decolonial camp, are encouraging signs for the movement that we want to build and for class unity. For this is never given; it is the product of a constant struggle against everything that, in a concrete capitalist society, works daily to divide those who should be united – workers - and to unite those who should be divided - capitalists and workers.

Any movement against oppression, even if its leaders do not pretend to pursue this objective, favors a higher level of unity of the exploited class, even when it appears at first to divide it . For it is by taking account of real divisions and by favoring the self-organization of the oppressed struggling to break down such divisions that concrete work is being done to create class unity and not by appealing for abstract unity around claims which, although they must obviously be defended and popularized, do not magically remove the inequalities and divisions within the class.

"Communism and religion"?
The developments relating to the Marxist analysis of the religious phenomenon are less surprising and original in that they echo much of the debates that we have already had, in almost identical terms, over the last fifteen years. It is essentially a divergence as to the practical consequences to be drawn from the contradictory nature of the religious phenomenon, as summarized in Marx's famous formula: " Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people" [7]

A contradiction which Lutte Ouvrière proposes to solve as follows: "Marx knew that religious prejudices were the consequences of oppression, and that they would not disappear before a profound transformation of society [...]. For all that, Marxists have always considered anti-religious propaganda indispensable. To be a communist is to be a materialist, and to be a materialist is to be an atheist. One can be an atheist and fight, in a strike, alongside a believing worker. But this does not mean that it is the duty of any communist revolutionary to not try to snatch the militants he wants to win over his cause, but even his comrades of work and struggle from the influence of religion. A proposition which is in reality only a negation of the contradictory character of the religious phenomenon.

For the whole problem is that "to be materialistic" is also to have a materialistic approach to the religious phenomenon. A materialistic approach which LO renounces, considering "religion" in an essentialist way, as a reactionary force everywhere and always, that it would be a question of fighting at all times and in all places by the dissemination of "anti-religious propaganda Independently of the political, economic, social and ideological forces. A materialistic approach summarised by Lenin in a 1909 article[8], in which he explains in particular that "the atheistic propaganda of social-democracy [= revolutionaries] must be subordinated to its fundamental task, namely: Class struggle of the exploited masses against the exploiters. Four years earlier [9], Lenin was already warning: "In no case should we be misled into the idealistic abstractions of those who pose the religious problem in terms of "pure reason", apart from the class struggle, as often radical democrats from the bourgeoisie".

To think of the religious phenomenon is to think of the material reality in which it is inscribed: Marx and the Marxists have repeatedly explained this by stressing that ideas, including religious ones, do not exist independently of the social forces that take it. "Religion can thus express different and even contradictory social and political dynamics: would it come to anyone's mind to pretend that" the "Catholic religion had the same meaning and the same significance, during the years 1960-1970, for the workers of Northern Ireland and for the dignitaries of the Franco regime? Obviously, no. Leon Trotsky[10] said nothing else in 1933 about the United States: "The baptism of a Black man is something totally different from the Baptism of a Rockfeller. They are two different religions. "

The same goes for Islam today: Islam practiced, even claimed, by certain categories of the population residing in France, cannot be considered on the same level as the Islam of the Saudi regime or the Iranian regime, even if, in the last resort, it were the same "religious dogma". In one case, Islam is a religion oppressed by the state; In the other, it is a tool of oppression of the state: this should not leave indifferent militants fixing for task the overthrow of capitalism and its institutions.
Let us go farther: in many cases - as analyzed in particular by F. Engels, R. Luxemburg or A. Gramsci [11] - religion has been the source of popular revolts, the language in which the will of the oppressed was expressed To overthrow the world, and thus the vehicle of their progressive and even revolutionary aspirations. From primitive Christians to liberation theology in Latin America, to the fringes of Christian youth in France in the 1960s and 1970s, the "dogma" could be interpreted in an egalitarian and militant sense, inclining to an action Aimed at bringing a world free from exploitation and oppression to life here without expecting any salvation in the hereafter.

When LO defends the reversal of the hierarchy of norms
Do not the Marxists have to give up fighting in France the influence of the currents of fundamentalist Islam? Obviously, no! But this struggle must be part of the existing relations of forces, and in the specific configuration of the class struggle in France: to paraphrase Lenin, this struggle is subordinated to the development of concrete mobilizations against the bourgeoisie and its capitalist state. The question thus arises: in France in 2017, the development of groups fighting against the authoritarian and warlike forward flight of the state and against discrimination that not only decimates the existence of millions of people but which, moreover, weaken the whole of our social camp, is it a positive or negative element on the scale of the global power relations between the classes? The answer is, from our point of view, in the question-LO's anti-religious obsession led the organization to refuse to participate in fronts that are nevertheless so many corners buried in the "historic block" that the French bourgeoisie is trying to consolidate by rallying to its cause entire fractions of the wage worker in the name of the "fight against terrorism". In this field, LO actually practices a reversal of the hierarchy of norms, subordinating the development of the class struggle to anti-religious propaganda and the struggle against fundamentalism. To reject a priori any specific alliance around a question - racism, here in the form of Islamophobia - which profoundly structures capitalist societies, and this in the name of so-called "materialistic principles", is to refrain to act in concrete terms in the relations of political and social forces.

Forgetting, in passing, one of the fundamental achievements of Trotsky, of which LO loves to claim, which explained in 1928, about the hypothetical alliances with the Chinese Kuomintang: "For a long time it has been said that agreements that are not binding on us in any way and create no political obligation, may, if it is advantageous at the moment, be concluded with the devil himself. But it would be absurd to demand at the same time that on this occasion the devil should convert completely to Christianity ... "[12]. Let us not be mistaken here on the reference to this metaphor of Trotsky: we do not wish to convert anyone to Christianity! But it must be emphasized that in other contexts, Marxists had the opportunity, when they felt that the situation required it, to come to terms with various currents, even very distant, without this signifying That they renounced their independence.

The fronts in which the NPA is participating are not in any way the frameworks in which we clasp our hands, nor the systems of alliance that would oblige us to abandon our criticism of religious fundamentalism, whatever it may be. Contrary to what LO suggests, an initiative involving an individual or a current claiming to be Islam is not mechanically a proselytizing initiative (such as the authors of the law of 15 March 2004, who claim absurd that the mere wearing of a religious sign is in itself an act of proselytism). Unless we consider that the Muslims would be, independently of the positions they defend and of what they say - since, let us recall, LO does not say a word about the content of the initiatives criticized in the article, by their nature proselytes.

Muslims, therefore fundamentalists according to LO?
It seems that according to LO, an alliance between Muslims and Marxists necessarily means that they [Marxists] are "making concessions", never questioning whether the Muslims do not also strongly admonished for having accepted to join initiatives where there are also atheists, even communists. This is the case, however, with fundamentalist currents which subordinate all activity to "Islamisation" and bluntly criticize those Muslims who are accused of compromise: a striking symmetry with the LO's invective towards a part of the far left.

And it is a rather striking element that this essentialisation of Muslim anti-racist militants as necessarily non-Marxists or necessarily from backgrounds resistant to the political culture of the radical left. Where LO only sees in Bibimoune Nargesse as a veiled woman (and according to LO as a "voluntary slave"), we also know from her that she is part of a generation of radically anti-capitalist militants whose Theoretical references are Frantz Fanon and Angela Davis. As she recalls in her book Confidences à mon veile[13]: "Tell them it is not you who pay us twenty-five percent less than men, tell them you are not responsible for the fact that one puts on eighty percent of domestic work, tell them that the polemic against you is again to question the appearance of women without ever focusing on their reflection ".

LO criticizes the NPA for putting forward community issues. But is it not to introduce the identity theme - and contribute to Islamophobia - to assimilate an anti-racist militant to Islamic fundamentalism on the pretext that she wears a headscarf? These remarks have nothing to envy to those held by so many ideologists - from Fourest to Valls, through Finkielkraut, Zemmour and Badinter - who have been working since the mid-1990s to transform secularism and / or feminism into instruments of stigmatization and exclusion of Muslims, and particularly Muslim women.

A large part of the Left and the Far Left - including LO - has been involved in promoting identity themes and in the development of Islamophobia over the last 15 years, Exclusion and disregarding for the words of the people concerned (in particular place Muslim women). We inherit this situation, and the weakness of our social camp, as well as the rise of reactionary and extreme right-wing forces of all kinds, is also an effect of our inability to struggle against the offensive Islamophobia that has been raging for so many years.

Conclusion
To conclude this reply, it should be noted that LO's article received the enthusiastic welcome of Fourest and Clavreul - supporters of Manuel Valls and defenders of a fundamentalist vision of secularism, clearly turned against Muslims - but also of Natacha Polony, a figure of neo-conservative thought. Obviously, we have the friends and the enemies that we deserve. But the essential is not there: it is in (at least) three important divergences between our two organizations.

1. The first divergence concerns Islamophobia itself. Contrary to what LO wrote at the beginning of its article, Islamophobia goes far beyond a simple "illusion", "diversion" or "smoke screen". Moreover, as Pierre Tevanian reminds us, "for all those who are not smoking, who do not take this smoke in their mouth, it has the only effect of preventing them from seeing a part of reality. But for those who take this smoke in the face, it is dangerous, it is toxic, for veiled girls, for their families, for Muslims in general. This law not only reduces their field of vision, but reduces their field of life, turning them from school, dropping out of school, desocialising them, humiliating them, brutalizing them at an age where one is fragile. [...] If there is a smoke screen, let us not also forget that it smothers, it poisons a part of the population " [13].
   
   Islamophobia, then, is an oppression and, first of all, as an oppression, it must be combated because it has immediate consequences - material, ideological and psychological - for the lives of millions of people (in France and elsewhere), the vast majority of whom belong to the working classes. Indeed, it is not simply a "smokescreen", but an oppression that arouses and reproduces real divisions among the working classes, that it can play so central a role in the strategies of the French ruling class. For the last fifteen years, it has been on Muslim (but also immigrant), and therefore on the identity and racist grounds, that successive governments have sought the consent of one party to the less workers to the capitalist order - where, on the social ground, workers remain massively opposed to the neo-liberal purge and austerity policies.[14]
   
2. A second divergence concerns the relationship to the first ones concerned by this oppression. The offensive of last summer around the "burkini" was a lesson of things from this point of view: it is always women who impose clothing injunctions, one way or another. But these injunctions are part of the oppression of women, of the control that some try to assume over their bodies. That is why last August, by protesting at the Port-Leucate beach against the municipal decision to prohibit the port of the burkini on the beaches (a decision which was rejected by the Council of State) We sang "too much covered or not enough, it's up to the women to decide". To put it another way, like almost all the feminist movements in the predominantly Muslim countries, sometimes mass movements that LO chooses to superbly ignore, we are equally opposed to those who want to impose on a woman to wear such or such a garment as to those who wish to force her to remove it.
   
   More broadly, we consider that self-organization is not a slogan for feast days: anti-capitalist and revolutionary militants do not have to patronize the oppressed on the best way to lead their struggles. The latter did not wait for LO to defend their interests, and they could have waited a long time, - as we have seen – as LO is more anxious to denounce the fight against Islamophobia than to contribute to it . What can we, as activists and as an organization, do is to make the best allies of the struggles of the oppressed, by popularizing their slogans, demands and proposals when they appear to us to go in the direction of a policy of emancipation and the fundamental interests of our social camp.
   
   It is only by participating in common organisations and common battles that we can convince ourselves that in order to really put an end to oppression we must build class unity and break down capitalist power by revolutionary means. In this struggle for the emancipation of humanity, what counts is not the opinion of the exploited and oppressed on God, salvation, or the origin of the world. As Lenin asserted, "the unity of this truly revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class fighting to create a paradise on earth is more important to us than the unity of opinion of the proletarians over the paradise of heaven." [15]
   
3. A third divergence is, finally, in the conception of politics for a revolutionary organization. As illustrated by its presidential campaign, LO is characterized more than ever by a very narrow vision of the political struggle, largely reduced to conflicts in the workplace, to the defense of an emergency program composed of essential demands, but strictly economic (wage increases, prohibitions of dismissals, etc.) and an abstract propaganda for "communism" (of which LO does not say much if one pays attention to it). As we have said above, this economic reductionism is a thousand leagues away from the political practice of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky or Luxemburg. If a revolutionary organization revels in a position of guardian of the dogma and in a routine essentially destined to self-replicate, showing henceforth incapable of contributing actively to the political battles currently being waged against Islamophobia, Urgency or imperialist wars, what could be its usefulness to really change the balance of power in favor of the exploited and the oppressed?

Notes
1 Lutte Ouvrière, ‘Le piège de la "lutte contre l’islamophobie"’, Lutte de classe n ° 181, February 2017, http://mensuel.lutte-ouvriere.org/2017/01/22/le-piege-de-la-lutte-contre-lislamophobie_75202.html
2 Lutte Ouvrière, ‘Communisme, religions et intégrismes’, Lutte de classe No. 126, March 2010,
http://mensuel.lutte-ouvriere.org/documents/archives/la-revue-lutte-de-classe/serie-actuelle-1993/article/communisme-religions-et
3 These include Abdellali Hajjat and Marwan Mohammed, Islamophobia . Comment les élites françaises fabriquent le "problème musulman", 2013.
4 Yasser Louati, “Vous revoilà encore, Manuel Valls, avec vos obsessions sur l’islam…”, Libération, 14 avril 2016.
5 Charlotte Rotman et Blandine Grosjean, « Un voile sur les combats féministes », Libération, 6 mars 2004, http://www.liberation.fr/debats/2016/04/14/yasser-louati-vous-revoila-encore-manuel-valls-avec-vos-obsessions-sur-l-islam_1446168
6 LO is far removed from the political tradition in which it claims to be registered. In What was to be done? Lenin opposed the revolutionary Social-Democrat (the word used in Russia at the time) to the trade union secretary (in other words, the trade unionist): "The secretary of a English trade unions, for example, constantly helps the workers to carry out the economic struggle, organizes revelations about the life of the factory, explains the injustice of laws and provisions hindering freedom of strike, freedom of picketing (to publicise the existence of strike in a given factory); It shows the bias of the arbitrator who belongs to the bourgeois classes, etc. etc.  and in a nutshell, every trade union secretary leads and helps to lead the '' economic struggle against the bosses and the government ''. [...] The Social-Democrat must not have as his ideal the secretary of trade union, but the popular tribune who is able to react against any manifestation of arbitrariness and oppression, wherever it occurs, whatever the class or the social stratum is experiencing it, knowing to generalize all these facts to compose a full picture of police violence and capitalist exploitation, knowing to take advantage of the slightest opportunity to expose before all its socialist convictions and claims To explain to everyone the historical significance of the emancipatory struggle of the proletariat ".
7 Karl Marx, Contribution to a critique of Hegel’s philosophy of the right, 1843, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm.
8 Lenin, The attitude of the workers party to religion, 1909, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm
9 Lenin, Socialism and religion, 1905, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm 
10 Leon Trotsky, The Negro question in the United States, 1933, https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1940/negro1.htm#prinkipo.
11 Michael Löwy, “Opium du peuple ? Marxisme critique et religion”, Contretemps.eu, 7 février 2010, Contretemps.eu, 7 February 2010, http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article28811.
12 Leon Trotsky, The Third International after Lenin, 1928, https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/index.htm.
13 Nargesse Bibimoune, Confidences à mon veile, 2016.:
14 “À propos de Dévoilements : du Hijab à la Burqa. Entretien avec Pierre Tévanian”, Contretemps.eu, 24
https://www.contretemps.eu/a-propos-de-devoilements-du-hijab-a-la-burqa-entretien-avec-pierre-tevanian/
15 Lenin, Socialism and religion, op. Cit.

Read more...

Regional elections: A first assessment - "Catastrophic"

Laurent Ripart

13 December, 2015
Originally published in French on MediaPart Blog

We cannot close our eyes: these regional elections were catastrophic, since they are a success not only for the FN (Front national – National Front) and the antisocial policy of the government that feeds it, but also a disaster for the working classes and parties who are supposed to represent them.

If the events of November 13 have played an important conjunctural role, these results are not any less indicative of a political situation that has deeply deteriorated in recent years. They remind us of our own mistakes, as the disaster is so general that no one can wash their hands. They probably also fall into the deep transformations of French society which is now dislocated by the deleterious effects of the crisis and regressive policies pursued by both the right and the PS. The radical left is in any case placed against the wall and now fights for its survival: A hypothetical scenario similar to that in Italy, which would see the total disappearance of the Left from the political field, is indeed no longer excluded.

1. The progress of the FN has essentially been done on the backs of the traditional right. Election after election, the FN ensures its hegemony over the social strata previously acquired by the Gaullist right. These consist of on one hand the most reactionary sections of the working class, which sees Raoult, Morano and others passing without difficulties to the Le Pen dynasty[1], and also the sectors most affected by capitalist globalization, for example farmers who seem in large numbers to be swapping their Gaullist vote for a FN vote. This social bloc finds its ideological cement in an obsessive xenophobia which expresses itself in a rejection of immigration, exiting the euro, protectionism, and the affirmation of national identity. These calls, which resonates all the more as it is not without roots in the contemporary history of France, enables the FN to develop the project of a national authoritarian state, probably more Putinist than really fascist.

The failure of the FN in the second round should however not lead to underestimate the extent of its progress and especially the acceleration of its rhythm: in the European elections of 1984, the FN had obtained 10.9% of votes; in the 2002 Presidential elections, it achieved the historic score of 16.8%; these regional elections, it reached 27.7% in the first round of votes. Although the most recent result is undeniably an effect of the attacks of November 13 and the anxiety-inducing environment that Hollande and Valls have striven to establish[2], the FN dynamics is very worrying. It collected the support of 7.6% registered voters for parliamentary elections in June 2012, it received the votes of 10.1% of registered voters for the European elections in May 2014, and 12% of those enrolled in the departmental elections of March 2015 before achieving in the first round of these regional no less than 13.2% of registered voters.

If it still continues to be rejected by the majority of the population, the FN has now reached thresholds that offer it the prospect of soon achieving power, whether as the beneficiary of an electoral accident, always possible in a presidential election, or perhaps more probably by an entry into a coalition government, as part of a parliamentary alliance with the traditional right wing parties. The situation is all the more alarming that there is no example in liberal democracies of a party that was able to maintain a lasting vote beyond the threshold of 30% of votes without being able to open the doors to power. Even in the days of the Cold War, the Italian DC (Democrazia Christiana) was being forced to consider sharing power with the PCI (Partito Comunista Italiano), when it achieved its historic result of 34% of the vote in the 1976 elections, and this "historic compromise" would very certainly have been achieved if the PCI had not been immediately struck by the general ebb experienced by Eurocommunist parties, when the PCI’s vote dropped below the 30% threshold in the 1979 elections.

To take the final steps that separates it from power, the Front National must achieve the support of at least part of the ruling classes, its current lack of support in media and intellectual circles, and amongst the bourgeoisie and employers, constitute for the FN a crippling handicap. In fact, the FN is sparing no efforts to attract employers, as evidenced by the recent disappearance from its program any mention of returning the retirement age to 60 or increasing the minimum wage. It thus sets up the conditions for rallying a part of the bourgeoisie, which is an assumption all the more conceivable with the still unresolved euro crisis which could prompt a fraction of employers wishing a return to the franc and who could see in the FN a movement conducive to its implementation.

2. At least as much as the FN, the PS is the winner of this election. By adding its voice to those of the PRG (Parti Radical de Gauche, Party of the Radical Left) and various left parties[3], the SP gets no less than 25.2% in the first round of the regional election. Not only has the hypothesis of a pasokisation the PS not been carried out[4], but using a clever cocktail tracks interference and appeal for a useful vote against the FN, Hollande and Valls have succeeded in achieving a first round score all the more remarkable in that it was totally disconnected from the obvious failure of their economic and social policies. When it is found that the lists of the PS and its allies increased from 3.2 million in the European election of May 2014 to 5.4 million votes in the first round of the regional elections, we imagine that Hollande may consider taking a further right-wing course by replacing Ayrault and Valls using Macron[5].

The success of the PS owes much to the strategy of Hollande and Valls who return with great cynicism to the grubby old Mitterand recipes. In presenting without fail the FN as his primary opponent, Valls has worked with the sole purpose of placing the right in difficulty. Wedged between a PS that is moving to the right and a FN that is building its presence in the institutions, the right is indeed torn between those within the right who cannot consider an alliance with the FN, and risk of falling into the arms of Hollande, and those who engage in a bidding game that legitimises the policies of Le Pen. By withdrawing its candidates in three regions, Hollande has managed a nice tactical blow, weakening Sarkozy while stoking the fires of discord within the right, which could ultimately end up with a double nomination in 2017. Although they have succeeded in the end in little more than pushing the country into crisis, Hollande and Valls can only welcome the success of their small political combination, since they have managed to transform the electoral rout all commentators foresaw into a resounding success, the majority of new regional presidents having been elected with their support and that they were successful in achieving a higher voter mobilization in second round.

If the PS lists have benefited from the attacks on November 13, they have also skilfully manipulated the power of the logic of a "useful vote", their success is also the result of a mutation of the PS that found its ideological expression in the strategy of a Republican Front. Beyond its politician character, the Republican Front fits indeed in the context of the profound transformation of the PS largely emptied of its former militant base, to avoid being elected today as a party of that base, and which focuses more on the middle class beneficiaries of globalization. Although Cambadélis is pleased to from time to time to dust off the old formulas of the Union of the Left he learned in his youth[6], the discourse of PS leaders is marked by a slow but real development, which replaces their old social references with cross-class values of the "Republic". From this point of view, the growing place taken by Republicanism in the trappings of socialist slogans is a sign of changes in the PS who in its ideological character, is now more democratic than social democratic.

3. The PS’s good score however is first and foremost at the expense of the left that Hollande has managed to marginalize and domesticate. The example of EELV (Europe Ecologie – Les Verts, Europe Ecology – The Greens) is emblematic: although it had acquired in the 2000s a stable electoral base of approximately 10% of the vote in local elections, EELV has been plucked by Hollande, who was able to skilfully play on the personal ambitions of its leaders, by baiting them, shadowing them, and dividing them by promises of parliamentary seats and ministerial positions. Having been left divided and discredited, the EELV lists eventually garnered only 3.83% of votes in the first round of the regional elections, an election that has traditionally been favourable to them.

A similar strategy has also allowed Hollande to marginalize the Front de gauche (FG – Left Front), whose lists only received 4.06% of the votes. By distributing some seats in the municipal elections, Hollande had already reached separate agreement with the PCF leadership and those of PG (Parti de Gauche – Left Party) and Ensemble! (Together!)[7], which had seemed to have understood how the alliance with the PS could be a kiss of death. The political disappearance of the NPA, which releases the FG of pressure on its left, combined with the ambitions of some and the illusions of others, has allowed this time to remove all blocks. After running a divided campaign in the first round, the various components of theFG have in fact all gathered in the second round on the lists of the PS, even as the government was establishing the state of emergency and declaring a war on the social movements. Furthermore, to justify the unjustifiable, ie their presence on the lists of the PS, EELV and the FG made the mistake of entering the trap set by Hollande, the call to "beat the right and 'extreme right’". They have rolled out the red carpet on which Hollande will only have to place his presidential bid because it will be easy to marginalize any candidate of the EELV or the FG, explaining that there will be no other way in 2017 to "beat the right and the extreme right" than to vote for the PS in the first round.

4. The virtual disappearance of leftist electoral field and the failure of the FG provide the popular classes with no political representation. If some of them still habitually vote for the PS, others are increasingly susceptible to the extreme right, but most took refuge in abstention. By not participating in the elections, the vast majority of the dominated and exploited shows that they are rightly aware that there is no political perspective on offer that could represent them and defend their interests seriously. These elections made a new demonstration, since participation by the popular classes in the election for offices does not exceed 20% of registered voters, which is even lower when a significant part of the inhabitants of these neighbourhoods do not even have the right to vote.

This lack of political representation of the working classes is the major problem of the period, since we are bound hand and foot by the anti-social policies of the right and the PS. Since the crisis of 2007 and the coming to power of Sarkozy and Hollande, the popular classes have paid the price through austerity policies, mass unemployment, precariousness and cuts to public services. They are also the first victims of the authoritarian state that Hollande and Valls are developing, as police searches allowed by the extension of the state of emergency focus almost exclusively on population of the neighbourhoods. They will furthermore be hit hard by the new anti-social offensive that the government has already scheduled for January: An approach reinforced by the elections, Valls will have even more legitimacy to lead his disastrous counter-reform of the labour code.

These regional elections will ultimately strengthen the political course set by the Valls government, putting into perspective the potential rise to power of FN and constitute a further stage in the decay of the labour movement that we have seen for some time. The danger level is reached; if we are not careful, the labour movement could disappear from the political field in the short term, without even the need for the FN came to power: the NPA is already lacking the strength to stand; LO[8] (Lutte Ouvrière – Workers Struggle) is cornered by its sectarian positions and the Front de Gauche is a vassal as never before to the PS. On the larger scale, there are already three forces in politics, the PS, the right and the FN, but it is not impossible that the first two end up, willy-nilly, merging into a vast Republican front.

Rather than launching swords in presidential campaigns, as Mélenchon is about to do, the radical left would do well to take the time to take stock of this situation and to wonder about its prospects. While it is obviously too early to identify a way, recent history has shown us anyway that there are two tracks that can only lead into the wall. The first is that of sectarianism, which would lead to a belief that these events are the just punishment of the radical left and therefore we should avoid any confrontation with the "reformists" and join with Lutte Ouvrière in hermitages of revolutionary thought. The second is opportunism, which leads to positions, via obscure tactical reasoning, of allying with the very people that we have fought all year, like Penelope destroying in the night the tapestry she has woven all day[9]. For my part, I am convinced that there is no future for the radical left that is strictly delimited to sectarianism and opportunism, but for now, the key is likely to be being aware of the magnitude of the disaster, noting that we confront a ruined field and it is no longer possible to continue as before, otherwise it will soon face disaster.

The situation is subjectively bleak, but yet the objective reality offers real potential. It is undeniable that despite the overall decline of workers' struggles, there are social explosions of great radicalism, the violence with which Air France employees were repressed by the government, from this point of view, constitutes an evocative testament to the fear that the ruling classes continue to experience when they face any eruption by the popular classes. If Hollande and Valls are now able to manage, via the state of emergency, to disarm the popular classes, anger remains sufficiently present to provide fertile ground everywhere in the reconstruction of a new emancipatory political project. Yet to do this, the left must not get bogged down in institutional manoeuvres, but it can assert its autonomy by combining forces with new forms of struggles we have seen emerge in recent years, such as those against productivism and large unnecessary projects that are taking place in the ZAD (Zone à defender – Defence Zone) Notre Dame Des Landes [10], or those against discrimination and Islamophobia that develop in neighborhoods.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Éric Raoult, currently associated with the Union for a Popular Movement, held two ministerial positions in the Juppe government. In April 2012, made public statements that he would not preclude an alliance with the FN.

Nadine Morano, member of Sarkozy’s Les Républicains, a minister in the Fillon government, caused controversy when in an interview in late September, she described France as a “Judeo-Christian and white country”. Morano was subsequently removed from the Les Républicains’ electoral list and there was question of whether she would join a FN list for the regional elections. 

2. Manuel Valls, prime minister of France since 31 March 2014, part of the dominant social liberal wing of the PS. 

3. PRG is a small social liberal party, it has been a close ally of the PS since 1972. The PRG candidates stood on joint lists with the PS in both the 2014 elections to the European Parliament and for the 2015 regional elections.

4. Refers to the marginalisation of the Panellinio Sosialistiko Kinima (Panhellenic Socialist Movement – PASOK), one of the dominant Greek political parties in the post-dictatorship period, in the wake of its support for austerity measures in Greece since 2007.

5. Jean-Marc Ayrault was PS prime minister of France from 16 May 2012 to 31 March 2014, he stood down following the poor performance of the PS in municipal elections that month. 

Emmanuel Macron, a former investment banker, has been the Minister of Economy, Industry and Digital Affairs in the Valls government since August 2014. Macron has been responsible for pushing through a range of pro-business legislative changes. 

6. Jean-Christophe Cambadélis, is the first secretary of the PS. 

7. Ensemble! Is a grouping of the smaller left parties within the FG. Ensemble! was formed by Alternatives (Les Alternatifs), Convergence and Alternatives (Convergence et Alternatives), the Federation for a Social and Ecological Alternative (Fédération pour une Alternative Sociale et Ecologique) and the Anti-Capitalist Left (Gauche Anticapitaliste). A number of these organisations, particularly the Gauche Anticapitaliste (which left the NPA in July 2012) come from a position critical of forming alliances with the PS.

8. Lutte Ouvrière is a French Trotskyist organisation and the main party of the International Communist Union. LO has a reputation for being sectarian, with a focus on workplace activity, and being suspicious of newer social movements such as the movement for alternative globalisation. 

9. Penelope – Odysseus’s wife, in Homer’s Iliad, Penelope sought to delay marrying unwanted suitors by saying she will marry once she has completed weaving a burial shroud for her father in-law, Every night for three years, she undid a part of the shroud to reweave it the next day.

10. Zone À Défendre – refers to occupations established by activists to block unwanted development. ZAD in Notre-Dame-des-Landes is an area of 2000 hectares of Fields and Forrests in Brittany which are threatened with destruction by plans to build a new airport.

Laurent Ripart is a NPA militant, and a former municipal councillor in the city of Chambery in the French Department of Savoie.

Read more...

France: Notes on the French situation after the local elections and the 12th April demonstration

François Sabado
21 April 2014
from International Viewpoint

1) The last municipal elections represent a new worsening of the political balance of forces for the left and the labour movement. 150 cities of more than 10,000 inhabitants swung from SP or CP-led to the right or far right.

Of course, after years of social-liberalism where the PS took its distance from the labour movement, a defeat of the PS at the polls no longer automatically indicates a defeat of the workers’ movement.

These workers, who do not feel represented by the parliamentary left any more, do not feel the bankruptcy of the Socialists to be theirs, fortunately. They even abstained massively (between 50 and 60 % of the registered voters in the popular suburbs or regions).

2) But when such defeat at the polls of PS leaves the space to the right and far right, when what remains of “historical municipal socialism” is falling apart, when the PCF loses a third of its local councils, in particular in the “red suburbs”, and these retreats are not compensated for, far from it, by victories of the radical left, this can only weigh negatively on the power relations between the classes.

This took place in an economic context marked by plant closures and governmental attacks which can provoke struggles or partial mobilizations, but that are not strong enough to block the austerity policies or to force the government to retreat. Years of reorganization of the workforce force, casualization and unemployment have shaped a workforce that is now paralysed by the crisis.

Especially as here too, the trade-union leaderships directly support the government’s“ pacts” with the employers or position themselves as “accompanying” them.

3) The last demonstration of this turn to the right was the nomination of Manuel Valls as Prime Minister.

In the SP primary elections that decided on the candidate for the 2011 presidential election, Valls represented the right within a Socialist Party that is already itself well to the right. He stood as a candidate against the 35-hour week, against an economic redistribution policy, for the privatization of the public services, and for reduction of the social security contributions, which aimed at new attacks on the Social security system. He identified loud and clear with the “policy of offer” based on a reduction of labour costs and subsidies for businesses – opposed to a policy of restarting the economy by demand. He got only 5% of the votes in this election, which proved that even for a very rightwing PS Valls was too much.

Two years, later, Valls’ policy is being openly applied, by Hollande, by the government and the PS. Stark result: 30 billion of subsidies to business, 50 billion of budgetary “savings” which will result in severe cuts in the public budget and social security. Already announced: the closure of ten hospitals, non-refunding of certain prescriptions, fall in wages of state employees. In Europe that is in a deep and lsting crisis, and where growth rate is around 1 %, such a policy can only plunge the country into the infernal spiral of austerity, unemployment and precarity.

But isn’t this precisely the desired goal, a radical modification of the social and political balance of forces? To undermine what remains of the “European social model” by eliminating a series of social gains, and align Europe in world competition.

4) The problem is that these socio-economic choices sap the social bases of the traditional parties, both of the right and left, and provoke political crises.

As regards social democracy, these parties are “less and less working-class and increasingly middle-class”. They are not bourgeois parties like the others, because the system needs their specificity to ensure alternation. But the relationships of these parties to the labour movement no longer express their history and their politics no longer have much to do with the classical policies of social democracy. They are neoliberal policies. For ordinary citizens and salaried workers Hollande-Valls are on the same line continuity as Sarkozy not only on social and economic qustions, but also in pressions repression o the undocumented or communities like the Romani. Valls is not offended by being considered the Sarkozy of the left.

But will the neo-liberal evolution of the PS not put into question the very existence of these parties? In southern Europe, the Portuguese PS or the Spanish PSOE have not shared the historical catastrophe of the Greek PASOK, even if they have been weakened. The French PS is still a major party, but these elections shook one of its fundamental pillars: its in the bases… If it continues its policy, other electoral failures will follow: with forthcoming European election, in the regional elections and cantonal and one does not see how the PS could claw back its support before the next presidential and parliamentary elections in 2017. A total collapse cannot be excluded.

The drop in support for the PCF is of another nature, that of the historical decline of post-Stalinism, but it represents also this worsening of the balance of power, in particular in a series of cities where the right has replaced the PCF elected representatives in the councils.

5) It is in this situation, with record abstention, that there was the swing to the right and the Front National, the latter gaining control of about ten big cities. The right has been strengthened in spite of contradictions on a series of questions: Europe, relations with the Front National, its leadership given the possible “comeback” of Sarkozy. Its activist base and its electors are under pressure from the ultra rightwing or the far right. As for the FN, it has confirmed its popular base, and the fact is that it increasingly attracts part of the working and popular electorate. Like the parties of fascist origin, it combines social questions and racism in its programme, but how i, in this situation will it manage contradictions between its fascist origin and leadership and the pressures that will arise from its integration in the institutions?

Admittedly, we are not in the 1930s, the ruling classes have chosen integration in capitalist globalization and not protectionist nationalism, but there can be “political accidents”, swing moments, where there would be a desynchronization between the fundamental socio-economic choices of the capitalist classes and the irruption of authoritative political solutions with the coming to power of (direct or indirect) coalitions of the right and the far right. The growth of the far right throughout Europe and the acceptance of governments like that of Orban in Hungary show the possible dangers for democratic freedoms and the popular movement.

In France as in many Europe, the balance is tipping towards the right, but fortunately there is also a social and political fightback.

6) The day of demonstrations on Saturday 12 April 12 in Paris and throughout the country testifies to this resistance. Several tens of thousands of demonstrators answered the call of more than 200 leaders of campaigns, trade unions or political parties to fight against the right and the far right and to oppose the austerity plans of the Hollande-Valls government.

The origin was a call by Olivier Besancenot for a weekend of revolt by the left against the successive demonstrations of the extremist right and the governmental policy. This was followed by statements along the same lines from Front de Gauche leaders. Then there were several weeks of work on a united-front call and preparatory meetings. The nomination of Valls gave an additional impetus to this mobilization. What made the success of this demonstration was its unity, its radical nature and its diversity. As well as the political organizations, tens of campaigns in particular for the right to housing, and sectors of the trade union movement were mobilized. In the CGT, a significant number of federations and local sections called for the mobilization against the position of the confederal direction. We should also note the significant contingents of PCF and the NPA in the Parisian march. This demonstration showed that, despite of the results of the municipal elections, there is a leftwing in France that does not accept the government’s policy and resists, and goes well beyond simply the parties of the radical left.

7) One of the key questions is: how to continue, how to express politically this dynamic of partial but significant mobilization, in this context of downturn?

The questions of unity of action, of radicality, and the fight against the governmental policy, the right and the far right are a guiding line for anticapitalists.

First in day-to-day social resistance, the fights against redundancies, budget cuts, strikes or mobilizations for social rights. The demonstrations for 1st of May are the next occasion. Without broad social mobilization which blocks austerity plans, wrests some partial victories, makes it possible to give back confidence to the workers and social movements, there will not be the beginning of change of the balance of forces. It is decisive.

But this must also be expressed politically by united action in struggles and in electoral battles. Already in the local elections, the NPA presented or supported 87 lists including 55 united ones, on an anti-austerity programme independent from the SP in the first and second round of the elections. Beyond, the radical left presented several hundreds of lists which marked a certain resistance, with appreciable results – unlike the rout of the SP.

After the municipal elections and the preparation of the 12 April demonstration the question existed of a unity proposal for the European elections. It is on this basis that the NPA sent a letter to the Front de Gauche, to LO, to Alternative Libertaire to discuss the possibility of a united list for the European elections. There are, of course, different positions on this question: the Party of the European Left is for refounding the European Union which seems to be an attempt at reform, whereas the anticapitalists fight for a break with the European institutions; Mélenchon can make ambiguous statements against “German Europe” or for “interdependent protectionism”, whereas we defend an internationalist policy without concession to nationalism. But for the “general public”, both will seem to be opposed to governmental austerity policies and the European Union and will propose another social and democratic Europe.

We this it is regrettable that the conditions could not exist to reach an agreement. The hesitations on both sides had an impact, but the tensions which paralysed Front de Gauche did not allow for a true discussion. It was, moreover, only at the last minute that the components of Front de Gauche finally reached an agreement on their own lists.

But beyond this agreement for the Europeans, the Front de Gauche is deeply divided on the relations to have with the PS. In the majority of large and medium-sized cities the PCF was allied with the PS. The other components of the Front de Gauche refused this alliance for the first round of the local elections. The result was that the Front de Gauche exploded on a key question that the NPA has raised for years: relations with the SP, then with the government. Although the NPA has been violently criticized for having put this question at the centre of the debate and has been accused of looking for excuses not to make the unity, many FdG activists recognize today that in fact the divergences on this point led to the explosion at the time of the municipal elections. Many things will depend on the next election results, in particular the Europeans, but the formula of Front de Gauche launched in 2010 is null and void today, it is necessary to discuss again unity and the basis for unity.

Indeed, unity is needed, and the anticapitalists must redouble efforts to deploy a unitive policy, but with the stepping up of the neo-liberal attacks by the PS in government, electoral alliances with this latter are impossible, support for SP parliamentary majorities or governments even more so. This is why the policy of Mélenchon to build an “ecologist popular front” with the leadership of the Greens (EELV) would lead to a new dead end, especially as the majority of the EELV group supports the Valls government.

The objective, in the weeks and the months to come, it is to broadcast loud and clear the voice of a left opposition to the government. A broad unitive opposition but a true opposition and, in this sense, we cannot build a left opposition with forces that support or take part in the government. This is unfortunately the case with the “left” of the PS and the EELV…

For the anticapitalists, in this difficult situation we have to combine unity in social and political action with a policy of clear independence from the PS, and an anticapitalist programme that defends the social needs of the workers and the population as a whole.

In a situation where the old left is rejected, it is necessary to rebuild the labour movement by redefining a unitive perspective which integrates the organizations but invents new forms and new programmiatic content. It is by fertilizing “the unity in action” with anticapitalist content that the revolutionaries will be useful in rebuilding.

The unity achieved on 12 April and suggested for the Europeans is a good indication for the orientation of the NPA in the months to come.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

François Sabado is a member of the Executive Bureau of the Fourth International and an activist in the New Anticapitalist Party (NPA) in France. He was a long-time member of the National Leadership of the Revolutionary Communist League (LCR).

Read more...