France: Following the threat of National Rally - Towards a New Popular Front government

Source: Braveheart

Lisbeth Latham

In the second round of the French National Assembly elections on July 7, in the face of fears that the far-right National Rally and its allies would win government outright, the New Popular Front won the largest share of seats. A key factor in this outcome was the decision by the majority of parties to limit the number of three or four-way contests that included RN, to give voters a clear choice between the RN and the alternative parties. However, the success of the NPF in the elections opens up new questions and challenges for the NPF and its component units regarding the formation of the next French government and how to relate to both this government and the presidency of Macron’s remaining three years in office.

You will find more infographics at Statista, 

 

RN candidates, who had reached the second round in 444 constituencies, received 37.03% of votes cast in the second round totaling 10, 110, 013 votes. Despite this, they won 143 seats (up 54 from their total in the 2022 elections) far short of the 289 seats required for a victory. While RN’s performance is being described as a stunning defeat, it represents a significant and continued advance for the party with nearly two-fifths of the electorate backing the far-right, and it was only defeated partly by efforts for France’s parties of the left and centre to make tactical voting against RN candidates easier.

A factor in limiting RN gains was the decision by both NFP and the pro-Macron coalition Ensemble to withdraw their candidates from three-way contests if they were the third candidate. Consequently, 216 candidates withdrew from the second round, 134 backed by the NFP and 82 from Ensemble.

Consequently, both NFP’s and Ensemble’s votes in the second round are distorted and do not accurately reflect their level of support. The NFP received 25.81% of the vote and won 180 seats (up 49 on 2022). Ensemble received 24.53% of the vote and won 163 seats. The final major block is the remnants of the traditional centre-right, The Republicans, whose vote collapsed to 5.41% in the second round, winning 66 seats, down 9 seats from 2022.

No block is an easy position to form a majority government. For a majority government to be formed, at least two electoral blocks, or significant parts of them, would need to unite. While there will be pressure from French capital for this to occur, most notably Ensemble, The Republicans, and potentially some or all of the centre-left parties, most notably the Socialist Party, within the NFP. This is a threat that John Mullen points out “The right-wing majority, aided by a strong media campaign, would prefer a coalition government, including parts of the left and right: including everyone, in fact, except the [France Insoumise] FI and RN.” Although it is unclear that a working majority would be able to be constructed by these groups. Alternatively, Romain Geoffroy, Adrien Sénécat and Maxime Vaudano argue other options would be a minority government appointed by Macron or a "technical government" of experts, which is common in countries such as Italy, and reliant on Macron’s ability, under cl 49.3 of the French Constitution, to push through laws without having a vote in parliament as long as there is not a no-confidence vote within the National Assembly. Unlike in some countries where no clear majority government, the French Constitution prevents there being a further election until those scheduled for 2025. In the wake of the election results Macron has asked the current prime minister, Gabriel Attal, to remain in place for the time being.

Faced with the likelihood of a minority government being formed the parties of the NFP, including the PS, are demanding that Macron “must immediately turn to the New Popular Front to enable it to form a government”. This government would have FI leader Clémence Guetté as prime minister. In the statement, the NFP argues:

“The results of the first and second rounds of the legislative elections confirm the failure of Macron's party. The French people put the New Popular Front and its program in the lead and thus prevented the victory of the extreme right, which was nevertheless presented as a given three weeks ago.

“This is the result of a tremendous popular mobilization that we want to salute and of the responsibility of all the voters who voted to express their rejection of the extreme right. It led to a record turnout. Even without an absolute majority, it gives us an immense responsibility.

“The New Popular Front is without a doubt the leading force in the new National Assembly. Following the republican custom in times of cohabitation [where the government is a different party to that of the President], it is up to the President of the Republic to turn now to the New Popular Front to enable it to form a government. If the President of the Republic persisted in ignoring the result of Sunday's election, this would be a betrayal of the spirit of our constitution and a democratic coup that we would oppose with all our strength.”

The need for workers and popular forces in France to mobilise both in support of the formation of not only an NFP government, but in support of the implementation of the NFP’s radical program, is clear. As the New Anti-Capitalist Party-The Anti-Capitalist put in their statement on July 9 “For all this, our social camp must remain united to fight, debate, organise and build a left of combat and rupture, bringing social progress, with a view to a revolutionary transformation of society, freed from exploitation and oppression”. This call for action in support and defence of the NFP is echoed in statements of France’s militant union confederations, which are part of the NFP, most notably the General Confederation of Labour and the Trade Union Solidarity.

Should Macron refuse to appoint an NFP government, any current mass mobilisations will have an important impact in resisting and pressuring any new government.

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

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: Responses to the spectre of a National Rally government

Lisbeth Latham

As expected the far-right National Rally (NR) and its allies emerged as the largest party in the first round of the French elections - with the potential to form government in the wake of the second round of elections on July 7. Demonstrating the extent to which the elections are seen as an existential crisis in French life, with a turnout of 66.71%, the highest turnout since the 1997 elections. In response, the coalitions of both the left, centre, and centre-right have moved to try to limit the performance of NR by taking a strategic approach to the second round to limit NR’s final seat tally. While such an approach is important, it poses significant risks for the left parties.

Candidates of RN and its allies the Union of the Far-Right (UXD) received 33.21% of the vote, the highest vote in the history of RN or its predecessor the National Front. This vote was down on the peak of RN’s support in opinion polls leading up to the elections. Based on this vote, candidates of the RN and UXN were elected in 38 constituencies and qualified for the second round in 444 constituencies. Which would allow them to potentially win a majority of seats and form government.

The New Popular Front (NFP) emerged as the second-largest party receiving 28.22% and winning 32 constituencies outright, with 415 candidates advancing to the second round. While this was consistent with NFP’s performance in opinion polls, it reflected a significant advance over the constituent parties’ performance in the 2022 elections - where New Ecological and Social People’s Union totaled 26% of the vote.

In response to this performance the parties of the left have been clear that the key threat is RN, and have sought to limit the number of RN candidates that will be elected in the second round. "Our guideline is simple and clear: not a single more vote for the National Rally," said France Unbowed (FI) leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon.

If no candidate reaches 50% in the first round, the top two contenders automatically qualify for the second round, as well as all those with 12.5% of registered voters. In the run-off, whoever wins the most votes take the constituency. RN candidates have qualified for run-off elections in 298 constituencies in which three or more parties have qualified.

Based on this Raphaël Glucksmann, who headed the Socialist party’s candidates in the European elections last month, called for all the candidates who finished third in the first-round to withdraw in order to forge a united barrier against the far right.

“Are we ready to hand over our country – the country of Victor Hugo, of Voltaire, of Rabelais – to the Le Pen family?

“That’s the only question that matters. It’s become a referendum and that’s why we’re asking all the third-place candidates to withdraw immediately, and why we’re asking people to vote, unambiguously and unhesitatingly, for democratic republicans whether they be on the left or the right, in order to stop the National Rally. We have seven days to avoid a catastrophe the likes of which France has never known in its history.”

Supporters of President Emmanuel Macron, who received 21.28% of the vote, have generally endorsed withdrawing candidates where they are the third candidate in a run-off. However, they have not been consistent in doing so. With leaders opposing withdrawing where the first or second candidate is from Melenchon’s FI, on the basis that, as Bruno Le Maire, France’s Finance Minister said “For me, France Unbowed is a danger for the nation, just as the National Rally is a danger for the Republic”. Despite this 224 candidates have withdrawn for the second round, reducing the number of four-way races from five to 2, and the number of three-way races from 306 to 89. The number of two candidate races has increased from 190 to 409. RN will be pitted against the NFP in 149 of these, while 134 elections will see RN contenders run against candidates from Macron's supporters.

The withdrawal of the third candidates substantially reduces the chances of RN being able to form a government. This could create a situation where the Macronists are reliant on votes of either RN or the parties of NFP. This creates a significant risk of the left, particularly with the threat of the far-right, being pressured to support either directly or indirectly a government of “republican unity”, an eventuality that can only further strengthen RN’s claims of being the party against the failings of the political mainstream elite.

In this context, the key will not just be what happens in the elections on July 7, but what happens in the streets after. As the National Confederal Committee of the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) said in a July 1 statement, “Nothing is written. The CGT will do everything to prevent the worst and win social and environmental progress. Through mobilization in the streets and at the ballot box, the world of work can and must win!”

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

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: New Poplur Front challenges the far-right

Lisbeth Latham

In the wake of the far-right National Rally (RN) winning the largest share of votes in France for the European Elections on June 9. French President Emmanuel Macron announced the dissolution of the French General Assembly with new elections to be held on June 30, with run-off elections to be held on July 7. The announcements have sparked real fears that RN could form a government. However, in the face of this threat, France’s left and progressive forces are seeking to fight back both on the street and through the formation of a New Popular Front (NFP). This development has generated both hopes for the left and fears for business that the snap elections could usher in a united left government.

In the European Parliament elections, like far-right parties across Europe but most notably in Germany and Austria, the RN’s vote surged to 31.37% or 7.76 million votes. This result was a substantially improved performance in comparison with RN’s performance in the 2022 National Assembly elections (18.7%) and the Front National (RN’s name at the time) in the 2019 European elections (23.3%). The substantial growth in RN’s vote, along with the fall in votes of parties that support President Macron which collapsed from 22.42% (2019) to 14.52% (2024). Raising fears that RN would be in a strong position to win both the 2024 presidential and national assembly elections.

revitalisinglabour@gmail.com

Map showing the political alignment with the highest vote in different localities across France on June 9 - Brown being Far-Right

In response to the poor performance of his supporters in the June 9 elections, Macron announced the dissolution of the National Assembly with the first round of new elections to be held on June 30. In announcing the dissolution, Macron said “France needs a clear majority in serenity and harmony”, a reference to the difficulty that Macron has faced with his supporters not winning a clear majority in the National Assembly in the 2022 election

Given the very different momentums between the far-right and the parties of the centre. RN and its leader Jordan Bardella are seen as being in a strong position to win a majority and form government. Indeed, Bardella has repeatedly said that the RN would only form government in its own right rather than build coalitions with other parties post the elections.

This possibility has led to significant speculation as to Macron’s motivation in taking a risk in allowing RN to form a government. One is to place pressure on the traditional Gaullist right-wing parties, most notably the Republicans, to enter into a coalition with Macron’s Rennaisance to form a government to avoid the threat of RN, or that should RN form a government that it would be in a situation of cohabitation with Macron’s presidency, which would limit the ability of an RN government to implement its agenda, and Macron potentially still able to push through legislation without reference to the national assembly via cl 49.3 of the French constitution which allows the president to declare legislation passed unless there is a vote of no confidence in the national assembly. This would require RN not only to have the largest bloc but a viable majority in the Assembly. Supporters of Macron’s approach hope that this frustration of RN’s agenda would result in dissatisfaction amongst their voters, positioning Macron and his supporters to then win the 2027 elections.

While this approach has been seen as a potentially risky but brilliant gamble the real potential risks are not going to be felt by Macron, but by the broader French population, particularly the working and popular classes and France’s marginalised communities who have historically been the target of RN’s agenda. This reality reflects the deeply cynical character of the decision to dissolve the National Assembly.

In the wake of the dissolution of the National Assembly, Éric Ciotti, the head of the Republicans has made it clear that he is willing to consider entering a coalition with not just RN, but also France’s second far-right party Reconquest which received 5.46% of the vote. This announcement resulted in an outcry within the Republicans and a move by the party’s leadership on June 12 to expel Ciotti from the Party - a move that the Paris Judicial Court overturned on June 15. On June 17, Ciotti announced that he would lead a list of 62 candidates from The Republicans in alliance with RN.

Despite Ciotti’s actions the leadership of Reconquest has refused to enter the alliance. Marion Maréchal, who was elected to the European Parliament for the party, and the niece of FN Presidential candidate Marine Le Pen, and the granddaughter of the National Front founder and long-time leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, led the negotiations with RN on behalf of Reconquest. However, when these broke down, she criticised party leader Éric Zemmourare accusing im of making too many demands, and announcing she would support the joint list between RN and Ciotti. In response Maréchal was expelled from Reconquest on June 13. Reconquest is standing their own list of candidates, but perfomance in opinion polls has collapsed to between 1-2%.

In the face of the European Election results and the dissolving of the National Assembly, there have been two linked responses from France’s left parties and broader social movements. The call for a united electoral alliance to attempt to achieve the best possible electoral outcome for the left and in parallel calls for popular mobilisations against both the dissolution of the National Assembly and the threat from the far-right.

On June 10, a call was issued for the formation of NFP to “carry a program of social and ecological ruptures to build an alternative to Emmanuel Macron and combat the racist project of the far right”. There were 11 initial signatory organisations including Rebellious France (FI), the Socialist Party (PS), the Ecologists, and the French Communist Party (PCF). While individual leaders of the PS initially rebuffed the call, this reluctance had changed by June 14, with Raphaël Glucksmann, the leader of the PS’s European Parliamentary elections ticket announcing his support. A contributing factor to this decision would have been the announcement by former president François Hollande, who had historically been close to Macron and had endorsed Macron’s previous presidential election campaigns, that he was supporting the NFP. Hollande has been confirmed as the candidate for the constituency he represented for 22 years prior to his election to the presidency in 2012.

The FNP’s agreed platform for the election includes:

• the abolition of Article 49.3 of the French Constitution;
• the introduction of proportional representation for elections to the National Assembly;
• organising a constituent assembly to prepare a new constitution for France, moving from the current Fifth Republic to the new Sixth Republic;
• supporting a retirement age of 60 and the repeal of the 2023 French pension reform law;
• introducing paid menstruation leave;
•  a 14% increase in the minimum wage;
• re-introduction of the solidarity tax on wealth that had been abolished in 2017;
• introducing a new tax on excess profits;
• increasing the Generalised Social Contribution paid by the richest taxpayers;
• free school lunches and supplies;
• abolition the Parcoursup University Admissions system - which limits the number of university places for high school leavers;
• supporting military aid to Ukraine, while committing to no direct French military intervention;
• recognising the State of Palestine;
• enforcing an arms embargo against Israel;
• introducing gender self-identification for trans people;
• abolition of universal national service

The announcement of the formation of the NFP has given significant hope to the French electorate with the NFP receiving between 26-29% support in national polls. This is close to maintaining the combined results that the NFP’s constituent parts received in the European Election of 31.58%. This consolidation of support makes it much more likely that candidates of the NFP will either be directly elected or reach the second round (when no candidate in the constituency achieves a majority of the vote. Support in polls remains consistently below the results for the RN’s polling of between 29.5-36%. The support for the NFP has given rise to concerned speculation in France’s mainstream media regarding the prospect of a NFP government, particularly one in which the FI’s leader, Jean-Luc Mélenchon would be prime-minister. With open speculation as to the willingness of French capital to support a RN government. Hoping to curry this support RN has announced that it would back away from promises to lower France’s taxes on fuel, power, and the broader value added tax.

The urgency of the situation has seen the far-left New Anti-Capitalist Party-Anti-Capitalist (the NPA split in 2023, the other component is the NPA-Revolutionary) announce that it would participate in the NFP. Whilst the NPA-Anti-Capitalist is small, in several constituencies, particularly around Bourdeux, where it has local councillors, it could have played a role in diffusing the left vote. The NPA-Anti-Capitalist’s participation in the NFP is significant as it and its precursors have, whilst willing to participate in negotiations around the formation of united electoral efforts, stood apart from left-electoral fronts to a large extent since 2002. This refusal has been primarily based on a desire for the formations to adopt a clear position going into elections that it would reject a governmental alliance with the PS due to the PS’s record of social liberalism in government, that is neoliberalism with a social democratic face. In announcing their participation in the NFP, the NPA - Anti-Capitalist observed “in a few days, all the left-wing political forces, unions, associations and movements working on environmental, anti-racist, feminist and LGBT+ struggles, grouped around the New Popular Front. In a few days, it is indeed our social camp, that of the exploited and oppressed, which has reconstituted itself as a political subject to defend its rights”.

The NPA-Anti-Capitalist is not alone in adding to the supporters of the NFP. There are now some 53 parties, five union confederations, and numerous social movement organistations that have joined and supporting the front.

Since June 16 there have regular protests across France called by FNP and other left and progressive social and political forces. Whilst not at the level of mass mobilisation as has been seen in France’s past they are significant. The interior ministry estimated national participation in protests across France on June 16 at 250, 000, whilst the General Confederation of Labour put participation at 640, 000 with estimates of Paris protest participation being 72, 000 and 250, 000 respectively. The details of the 117 actions against the RN across France this week can be found here.

Irrespective of the outcome of the first and second rounds of the elections. The capacity and willingness of France’s left and popular movements to build on these mobilisations play a central role. In the lead-up to the second round of elections, this will include pressuring the parties of the centre and right to work against the election RN candidates. In the wake of the second round opposing any efforts to build a coalition with RN to form government. Finally in the face of whatever government is formed to struggle for the interests of working and popular classes and marginalised communities whether against a government of the far-right, centre, or in holding the parties of the left to the NFP program.

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

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 to let me know.

Read more...

France: Our country is in mourning and angry (united appeal)

Original is available here

Our country is in mourning and anger. The murder of Nahel, killed by a police officer at point-blank range in Nanterre, has laid bare the effects of decades of discriminatory public and security policies targeting working-class neighborhoods and the youth who grow up there, particularly racialized and precarious people. The escalation of violence is a dead end and must stop. The essentially repressive conception of the police, and the legislative evolution of 2017 on the use of service weapons, aggravate what the population experiences and suffers in terms of discrimination and racist practices.

The tensions between the population and the police come from afar and are part of a history marked by injustice, prejudice, violence, discrimination, sexism... and systemic racism that runs through society as a whole and has not yet been eradicated.

The inhabitants of the neighbourhoods concerned, and especially women, often make up for the shortcomings in terms of public services alone. It is indeed the regression of these, the school, the places of sharing and culture, sports, the post, the administrations etc. and the decline in State support for associations, which have largely contributed to marginalizing these neighbourhoods and entire territories well beyond, particularly in the overseas territories.

The abandonment of these neighborhood populations is aggravated by the economic context of impoverishment, inflation, rising rents, energy prices and the reform of unemployment insurance. Social inequalities particularly affect children and single mothers. This is shown by the revolts that have shaken the working-class neighborhoods in recent days in reaction to the tragedy of Nanterre.

In addition to decades of excesses of a policy of maintaining order, security laws (global security law, separatism law ...) and exceptional measures, we have witnessed in recent days pressure from the government to set up expeditious justice. The imposition of systematic preventive detention with increasingly heavy sentences is not acceptable!

The urgency is not that of repression, which will only strengthen the extreme right and set back rights and freedoms once again.

Lasting appeasement is only possible if the government takes the necessary measures to respond to the urgency of the situation and the demands of the populations concerned.

The UN has repeatedly criticized security policies and institutional problems of racism in France, particularly in law enforcement.

It is discrimination that is a toxic poison that undermines the very idea of equality and sows despair.

The far-right is making it its bed to further divide society. We denounce the call for civil war against working-class neighborhoods and the characterization of people who come from them as "harmful" by police unions.

We condemn the constitution of a fundraiser in support of the policeman who killed Nahel at the initiative of a member of the extreme right and the absence of any action by the government, thus adding fuel to the fire.

Everything has to be rethought and built. We must start from new bases, create spaces for broad discussions and learn from the mistakes of public policies over decades, respecting the histories, backgrounds, cultures and singularities that feed our collective aspiration for equality. It is high time to listen and take into account the demands of the inhabitants of working-class neighborhoods and in particular its youth!

The situation requires the government to assume its responsibilities and provide immediate responses to get out of the confrontation:

• Repeal of the 2017 law on the relaxation of the rules on the use of firearms by law enforcement agencies; 
• an in-depth reform of the police, their intervention techniques and their armament;
• the replacement of the IGPN by a body independent of the police hierarchy and political power; 
• the creation of a service dedicated to discrimination affecting young people within the administrative authority chaired by the Defender of Rights and the strengthening of the means to combat racism, including in the police.

However, nothing can be done without a different sharing of wealth, without fighting against social inequalities. Nothing can be done without the fight against poverty and precariousness, aggravated by climate change, rising rents and charges, and without strengthening public services and popular education. It is these projects that the government should tackle instead of carrying out regressive public policies that pave the way for the far right.

Our trade unions, associations, collectives, committees and political parties are mobilized to maintain public and individual freedoms.

In the immediate future, we call to join all the rallies and marches around these demands, everywhere in the country from Wednesday, July 5, like the march organized by the Truth and Justice Committee for Adama on July 8 in Beaumont-sur-Oise, and that of the National Coordination against police violence on July 15.

We call for citizen marches on Saturday, July 8 throughout the France and overseas territories.

We will build together the follow-up of these mobilizations.

Signatories
Unions:
Confédération générale du travail (General Confederation of Labour); Confédération nationale des travailleurs-Solidarité Ouvrière (National Confederation of Workers-Workers' Solidarity); Fédération Syndicale Étudiante (Student Union Federation); Fédération syndicale unitaire (Unitary Union Federation); Solidaires Étudiant-e-s (Student Solidarity); Syndicat des Avocats de France (Union of France Lawyers); UNEF le syndicat étudiant (UNEF the student union); Union Syndicale Solidaires (Trade Union Solidarity); Union Étudiante (Student Union).

Associations:
350.org; Adelphi'Cité; Amnesty International France; Alternatiba; Alternatiba Paris; Les Amis de la Terre France (Friends of the Earth France); ANV-COP21; ATTAC France; Bagagérue; Conscience; Coudes à Coudes; DAL Droit au Logement (DAL Right to Housing); La Fabrique Décoloniale (The Decolonial Factory); Fédération des Associations de Solidarité avec Tou-te-s les Immigrés-e-s (Federation of Associations of Solidarity with All Immigrants); Fédération Nationale de la Libre Pensée (National Federation of Free Thought); Fédération nationale des maisons des potes (National Federation of Houses of Friends); Femmes Egalité; Fondation Copernic (Copernicus Foundation); Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigré·es (Information and Support Group for Immigrants); Greenpeace France; Jeune Garde Antifasciste (Young Anti-Fascist Guard); Ligue des droits de l’Homme (League of Human Rights); Memorial 98; Observatoire nationale de l’extrême-droite (National Observatory of the Far-Right); Organisation de Solidarité Trans (Trans Solidarity Organization); Planning familial; Réseau d’Actions contre l’Antisémitisme et tous les racismes (Action Network against Antisemitism and All Racism); REVES Jeunes (DREAMS Young); SOS Racisme.

Collectives:
Alliances et Convergences; Assemblée des Gilets Jaunes de Lyon & Environs (Assembly of the Yellow Vests of Lyon & Environs); Colère Légitime (Legitimate Anger); Collective civgTENON; Collectif des Écoles de Marseille (Collective of Marseille Schools); Collectif national pour les Droits des Femmes (National Collective for the Rights of Women); Collectif Nouvelle Vague (New Wave Collective); Collectif Vérité et Justice pour Safyatou, Salif et Ilan (Truth and Justice Collective for Safyatou, Salif and Ilan); Collective des mères isolées (Collective of single mothers); Comité des Soulèvements de la Terre Sud-Essonne (Committee of the Uprisings of the Earth South Essonne); Comité Local de Soutien aux Soulèvements de la Terre Aude (Local Committee for the Support of the Uprising of the Earth Aude), Comité Soulèvement Bas-Vivarais (Bas-Vivarais Uprising Committee), Comité les Soulèvements de la Terre Lyon et environs (Committee the Uprisings of the Earth Lyon and surrounds); Comité local de soutien aux Soulèvements de la Terre Villefranche (Local Committee for the Support of the Uprisings of the Earth Villefranche), Comité local de soutien aux Soulèvements de la Terre Romans-sur-Isère (Local Committee for the Support of the Uprisings of the Earth Romans-sur-Isère); Comité nîmois de soutien aux Soulèvements de la Terre (Nîmes Committee for Support to the Uprisings of the Earth); Comité de soutien à Moussé Blé (Support Committee for Moussé Blé); Comité justice et vérité pour Mahamadou (Justice and Truth Committee for Mahamadou); Comité Les Lichens Ardéchois; Comité Vérité et Justice pour Adama (Truth and Justice Committee for Adama); Coordination des comités pour la défense des quartiers populaires (Coordination of committees for the defense of working-class neighborhoods); Democra'psy, Dernière Rénovation; En Gare; Justice pour Othmane; La Révolution est en marche (The Revolution is underway); Lla Terre se soulève en Corrèze (The Earth rises in Corrèze); Le Peuple Uni (The United People); Les Soulèvements de la Terre - comité Île-de-France (The Earth Uprisings - Île-de-France committee); Les Soulèvements de l'Entre2Mers (33); Lyon en lutte (Lyon in Struggle); Lyon Insurrection; Nîmes Révoltée (Nîmes revolted); Réseau GBM (GBM Network); Rejoignons-nous (Let's join); Collectif du 5 novembre - Noailles en colère (Marseille) (Collective of November 5 - Noailles angry (Marseille)); Syndicat des quartiers populaires de Marseille (Union of working-class neighborhoods of Marseille); Collectif Justice pour Claude Jean-Pierre; Youth for Climate IDF.

Political organizations:
ENSEMBLE! – Mouvement pour une Alternative de Gauche, Écologiste et Solidaire (TOGETHER! – Movement for a Left Alternative, Ecologist and Solidarity); Europe Ecologie Les Verts (Europe Ecologie Les Verts); La France insoumise (Rebellious France); Front Uni des Immigrations et des quartiers populaires (United Front of Immigrations and Popular Neighborhoods); Gauche Ecosocialiste (Ecosocialist Left); Génération.s; Nouveau parti anticapitaliste (New Anti-capitalist Party); Parti Communiste des Ouvriers de France (Communist Party of France Workers); Parti de Gauche (Left Party); Pour une Écologie Populaire et Sociale (For a Popular and Social Ecology); Parti Ouvrier Indépendant (Independent Workers' Party); Réseau Bastille (Bastille Network); Révolution Écologique pour le Vivant (Ecological Revolution for Life); Union communiste libertaire (Libertarian Communist Union).

Read more...

Why Australian unionists should build solidarity with Ukrainian workers and their Unions

Members of the Independent Miners' Union of Ukraine (NGPU) in Novovolynsk district with representatives of the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign who were delivering donations to Ukrainian workers. Source: Ukraine Solidarity Campaign.

Lisbeth Latham

Sixteen months ago the Russian Federation launched a brutal invasion of Ukraine. Aimed at a quick lightning invasion, it was stifled, against all expectations, by the heroic resistance of the Ukrainian armed forces. This resistance not only blunted the attack but has been able to launch counter-offensives and liberate some Ukrainian territory - largely due to the much-delayed delivery of military equipment from Western imperialist governments. The ongoing conflict has sparked widespread debates globally about what attitude the left, particularly unions, should take to the conflict and how to achieve peace. I believe the only principled position for the left is to take solidarity with Ukrainian workers and their unions to defeat the Russian invasion. In doing so we not only have a position to build a better Ukraine post-Russia’s invasion but also our own ability to build a better world.

Picking sides
In the sections of the left and labour movement internationally and within Australia there has been determined resistance against supporting solidarity with Ukraine. Arguing variously:

• That the Russian Federation’s invasion of Ukraine was provoked by the actions of the US and NATO; 
• That Ukraine is acting as a proxy for NATO and as such denied military aid; 
• That Ukraine receiving military aid is extending the war, and as such aid should end;

These arguments, apart from reflecting the position of the Russian Federation and its supporters in the global far-right, operate on the basis that global politics operate within a frame of a contest between two camps, US imperialism and its allies amongst Western imperialist states on the one hand, and an opposing camp of “anti-imperialist” countries in opposition to US interests and that it is necessary to pick sides in this conflict, with a view that the left must side with the opponents of US interests.

There are a number of problems with this. As has been argued by a number of writers it constitutes the “anti-imperialism of idiots” that simplifies politics to simply taking an opposing position to whatever one's own ruling class takes. It also, as Indian communist and feminist, Kavita Krishnan has argued results in the left uncritically supporting the actions of authoritarian regimes not only internationally but also against their own popular movements in the name of defending and supporting “multi-polarity”.

More importantly, it entirely ignores the agency of not just Ukraine as a sovereign country, but more importantly what the Ukrainian working class and their organisations believe is necessary. This has primarily been justified based on both the counter-posing of both US interests but also Russia’s right to a zone of influence - essentially accepting its right to a zone of influence where it can determine the domestic and foreign policy of its neighbours, similar to the US actions globally, particularly within Latin America under the Monroe Doctrine.

Central to the denial of Ukraine’s right to self-determination has been the maligning of Ukrainian society and culture as inherently fascist and far-right. This in part echoes some of Russian government’s justification of war in painting the idea of Ukrainian identity as inherently fascist but relies on the presence within Ukrainian society, and particularly the armed forces, which are “riddled with far-right forces that venerate anti-Semitic Nazi collaborators”. The Ukrainian left openly acknowledges that there has been, and continues to be, a significant influence in Ukrainian society by far-right forces. However, Ukraine is hardly alone in this problem, many societies have problems of far-right forces within society - indeed the Putin government is seen as a significant sponsor and inspiration for many of them. Also, many countries, including Australia, popularly venerate, at least within at least a section of society, thoroughly reactionary if not openly genocidal figures, it seems a strange threshold for a just war, particularly given that the most recent mass global anti-war movement against US imperialist action was in defence of Iraq, which at the time was lead by the Baarthist government with a long record of crimes against both its own population, particularly minorities, and its neighbours.

So what do Ukrainian workers and marginalised communities see as necessary in the face of the invasion? Ukrainian progressive organisations such as Sotsialnyi rukh (Social Movement), are very clear in their assessment that the defeat of the invasion is necessary for the broader liberation struggles in Ukraine to be successful. The Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine in a statement marking one year of the invasion said:

“This unprovoked war was started not only against Ukraine. It undermines everything that we, trade unions, represent – peaceful labor, democratic values, sustainable development, and justice. The unjustified invasion of the Russian army into Ukraine endangers not only our freedom and independence but also peace and stability in Europe and the world.

“We call on all people of goodwill to help Ukraine and its citizens protect the right to life! Stand with Ukraine! Help Ukraine to win this 9-year war, to restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity and to return peace to Ukraine!"

For these reasons thousands of workers, members of the LGBTIQA+, Tatar, Roma, Jewish, and feminist communities are participating disproportionately within the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Territorial Defence Forces, and partisan units in Russian-occupied Ukraine. As such, they have made it clear that they support the provision of military aid to Ukraine to enable it to defeat and roll back the Russian invasion.

However, these forces also recognise that their struggle will not end with the defeat of the invasion. During the current invasion, the Valensky government has sought to carry roll back the rights of workers and their unions. It is also clear that both Ukrainian and global capital will seek to use any post-war rebuilding process in Ukraine to further liberalise the Ukrainian economy and increase the poverty and marginalisation of Ukrainian workers.

In the face of both the current invasion and the looming struggle in a liberated Ukraine, Social Movement and the Ukrainian unions are calling for material support from the global labour movement to maximise the capacity of Ukrainian workers to organise. The ability of organisations such as the Confederation of Free Ukrainian Unions, to support its members, both as they continue to keep Ukrainian society functioning and as they participate in the armed struggle, not only to speed the turning back of the invasion but build the authority of the union movement in seeking to build a more democratic and equal Ukrainian society in the future.

It is essential that Australian unions join global efforts to build material and political solidarity with Ukrainian workers. The simplest way to build material support is to make donations to the solidarity convoys being organised by those sections of the European labour movement that are supporting Ukrainian workers. Equally important is the building of direct links with Ukrainian unions and awareness amongst Australian workers of the current struggles in Ukraine. This is not just in keeping with our movement’s long history of struggle and solidarity with international struggles against imperialist oppression, but to maximise our ability to place pressure on the Australian government and its imperialist allies against their efforts to transform Ukraine into a neoliberal “paradise”.

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

Lisbeth Latham is a long-term union activist and organiser. She is a trade union solidarity representative in Australia for the European Network in Solidarity with Ukraine. She tweets @grumpenprol and would like to hear from Australian unionists interested in building solidarity with Ukrainian workers.

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...

How we can respond to the cost of living crisis

Lisbeth Latham

Throughout late 2021 and 2022, we have seen rising inflation pressures both in Australia and internationally. The growth in inflation, whilst initially dismissed as a serious problem, has now triggered sharp increases in interest rates by central banks globally combined with a significant rise in capital and governments blaming inflation wage growth and warning against the “danger” posed by efforts by workers seeking to maintain their purchasing power via wage rises - an action which has been blamed for driving the current inflationary pressure.

What is causing inflation?
While there is generally a range of pressures at any given time to increase the cost of goods and services, the current increases reflect an intersection between different world events. These are primarily:

• the continued disruption of a range of global supply chains, many of which have their origin in China, due to the impact of COVID on manufacturing, transport, and distribution networks. 
• The disruption range of food production areas has been disrupted by extreme weather events, where crops have been wiped out or damaged, which has driven up some food prices. 
• The ongoing war in Ukraine and the economic sanctions imposed on Russia in response have caused significant disruption in Russian gas exports and Ukrainian grain exports. 

All of these factors have placed upward pressure on the costs of goods.

However, a more significant factor has been the decision by a wide range of companies to boost the price of their goods to a level substantially above any underlying rise in costs. This is reflected in a wide range of companies experiencing massive growth in profits substantially above their growth in turnover - suggesting that the primary driver is deliberate price gauging by these companies in a context where they believe they can shift blame for price rises to external factors.

Interest rates
Globally the response of central banks to inflationary pressures has been to move to reduce the money supply by raising interest rates. While for certain sections of the economy, such as in stock market speculation and the housing market, this will undoubtedly result in an effective reduction in spending that will not necessarily disrupt the economy - for most working people these rate rises are likely to cause potentially catastrophic disruption, that will not only be individually devastating, as a consequence of rising mortgage repayments in the context of significant and widespread mortgage stress, and the inability to afford basic costs of good.

Stagnant wages
Wages in advanced capitalist countries prior to the current crisis had largely been stagnant during a period of low inflation, this stagnation has been exacerbated by the current inflationary pressure. Wage stagnation has been a result of: 

• Hostile industrial relations regimes that have weakened the power of workers and their unions whilst limiting the restrictions on employers deploying power; 
• An aggressive approach to bargaining and wage setting by employers as a consequence of historically low-profit growth 

In Australia, the problems of enterprise bargaining under the Fair Work Act - which has seen record low wages growth in the past decade have been raised by both the ACTU and the ALP as a basis to amend the Act, most notably to enable unions to engage in multi-employer bargaining and have access industrial action during such bargaining, currently, workers are prohibited from taking industrial action in pursuit of a multi-employer agreement.

The introduction of improved multi-employer bargaining will have the potential to improve the bargaining power of those workers who have been historically excluded from enterprise bargaining, however it is important to recognise that the legislation excludes more than 2 million workers employed in smaller workplaces from this bargaining pathway. In addition, the passing of amendments is unlikely to help boost the wages of many workers in the short term, particularly not quickly enough to address the current cost of living crisis. This is due to a number of factors but most significantly: 

• Bargaining is not a quick process; 
• The legislation won’t magically overcome the low level of union density, which is compounded by low levels of workplace organisation in the majority of sectors; 
• Many workers are already covered by agreements that have yet to expire and will deliver a decline in real wages over their remaining lives of those agreements 

As such we need to explore ways in which to address the cost of living crisis outside of wage fixing. The most obvious solution would be to create a universal income supplement that would be received by all. This would able to be more rapidly adjusted than wages, and by making it universal it ensures that other groups outside of wage setting systems, such owner operators and those on government pensions, also have their purchasing power maintained. However, the creation of an income subsidy should not be seen as counter to the existing push to increase pensions to the poverty line, but instead as an additional supplement to that.

Limiting price rises
However, simply seeking to maintain working people’s purchasing power will be insufficient to deal with the current cost-of-living crisis. As increased purchasing power is likely to drive costs up in at least some sections of the economy. This is not because these mechanisms are necessarily inflationary - they aren’t - but instead, the maintenance of purchasing power would allow owners of capital to seek to increase their profits by absorbing this increased ability to pay. To ensure that we aren’t just boosting profits to sections of capital, there will need to be strict limits to increases in costs to those caused by actual inflationary pressures rather than gouging. While this is widely discussed in relation to power and fuel prices, there is no need for these companies to be compensated for their profit not rising as much as they could - indeed their significant profits should instead be properly taxed to help fund the income supplement. In addition, governments should act to freeze both rents and mortgage payments - both need to be frozen to ensure we don’t see mass defaults in the residential housing market - which would further open this market up to vulture capital buying houses cheaply in any depressed housing market, particularly in a period when working-class home buyers will face significantly higher borrowing costs.

Paying for an income subsidy 

A major argument against any such increase in social spending will be the state of the federal budget, particularly in the wake of the significant social spending during the earlier period of the pandemic, after all as Theresa May sad, “there is no magic money tree”. 

However, the reality is that there are significant sources to improve the treasury’s revenue situation. 

The first of these is to not go ahead with third stage of tax cuts which were originally legislated by the former Morrison government. These cuts primarily benefit high income earners and if stopped would retain an estimated extra $238B in government revenue over the next ten years.

Secondly, is to recognise, as John Christensen and Nicholas Shaxson have put it “there is a magic money tree or trees: one version of which would be “tax havens, multinational enterprises, and the mega rich””. Research by the Australian Institute indicates that five of the six major gas exporters paid no tax on $138 billion in revenue in the past seven years. This reflects the ongoing and problem of large corporations avoiding their tax obligations, a problem which requires, like in other countries, further tightening of a broad range of regulations. In addition, Australia should also look at imposing windfall taxes (that is higher taxes) on any profits that are being expanded as a consequence of them taking advantage of the current inflationary pressure, rather than look at increasing the subsidising fossil fuel companies to compensate them for limiting the extent of their profiteering.

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

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...

Ukraine: A "just peace" is only possible if Ukrainian people can defend themselves

Ukrainian anarchists within Ukrainian Territorial Defence Force source: libcom.org

Lisbeth Latham

In their recent opinion piece in Green Left Weekly Peter Boyle and Alex Bainbridge argue that anti-war activists in Australia should be calling for negotiations in Ukraine and oppose any effort to expand the war. This is in response to Fred Fuentes’s call for support for the ability of Ukraine to defend itself. Boyle and Bainbridge make a number of arguments, similar to other sections of the Western left, which Ukrainian radical forces have rejected as being based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe, particularly the role of Putin’s Russia as the regional imperialist power.

Boyle and Bainbridge express concern at the costs of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has had on human life and the potential for this to escalate as winter approaches. Flowing from this Boyle and Bainbridge conclude that the West’s provision of military support, in the form of weapons, equipment, intelligence, and training, to Ukraine risks unnecessarily prolonging the war and thus human suffering. Instead of supporting, or even demanding military support, as Fuentes, and the Ukrainian left, do, Boyle and Bainbridge argue that anti-war activists should instead be calling for negotiations.

This logic is fundamentally flawed. First, it ignores that the primary cause of suffering and death in Ukraine is the Putin government’s decision to invade. The risk of further loss of life and injury could be immediately avoided if Russian forces were to withdraw from Ukrainian territory unconditionally. For anti-war activists to demand negotiations or a return to diplomacy accepts that Russia has a right to intervene in Ukraine. Such a position echoes the debates in the movement against the Vietnam War. As Doug Lorimer wrote in his history of ‘The movement against the Vietnam War’, in reference to the Communist Party of Australia’s call for the US to “Stop the bombing, negotiate”:

“Almost alone, Resistance continued to support the "Out Now!" demand. We argued that "Stop the bombing, negotiate!" failed to recognise the Vietnamese people's right to national self-determination, the central issue underlying the war”.

Moreover, should negotiations occur between Ukraine and Russia, these negotiations would be informed by the balance of forces between Russia and Ukraine that exist at the time of those negotiations. The arming of Ukraine has allowed the Ukrainian people to initially blunt Russia’s invasion and subsequently launch counterattacks on a number of fronts. It is precisely this shift, in both the balance of forces and the momentum of the conflict, which has prompted some of Putin’s allies internationally, such as Trump, to call for negotiations to occur. However, as Volodymyr Artiukh and Taras Fedirko have pointed out, the Putin government has acted in bad faith around negotiations, primarily using them as “a smokescreen” for its aggression in Ukraine.

An important question that anyone calling on Ukraine to negotiate regarding its national sovereignty should answer is, what would the basis of negotiations be, when Putin and his allies deny the right of Ukraine to exist as a state? Calling for negotiations while Russian forces are on the backfoot but still holding significant amounts of Ukrainian territory would also place Putin in a position to demand ceding of Ukrainian territory as a basis for peace. Such an outcome could hardly be called a “Just Peace”, but more accurately the rewarding of criminal action.

Central to Boyle and Bainbridge’s argument is the imperial ambitions of the US and its allies to seek to maintain the US’s global imperialist hegemony. It is undoubtedly true that the US is seeking to use the conflict in Ukraine to undermine Russia’s attempts to re-establish itself as the dominant power in the territories which formerly made up the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire. In doing this they also hope to isolate China as it emerges as an alternative pole of economic and military power able to challenge US dominance.

Having said this, our assessment of US intentions should not be a primary determining factor in our attitude towards conflicts or popular movements. The orientation of revolutionary and progressive forces should be predicated on the needs and interests of popular movements, and not how imperialist powers might seek to maneuver in relation to those movements to protect their own interests. While many left forces have criticised the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) for accepting military support from the US, the Socialist Alliance (SA), which both Boyle and Bainbridge are in the leadership of, has historically defended the right of the SDF to receive weapons necessary to defend themselves. Indeed, SA and Green Left Weekly have taken a position calling for the enforcement of a no-fly zone in Northern and Eastern Syria - which is to be enforced by the US and Russia.

This begs the question, how the sending of arms to the SDF can be not just permissible but something that would be demanded, but we should oppose the Ukrainian people receiving arms to defend themselves? While our positions on different situations do not need to be, and shouldn’t be, identical, we should be able to explain why they are different, and I personally struggle to see how there is such a fundamental difference.

I believe that progressive forces should defend the right of both Rojava and Ukraine to defend themselves and that this means being able to obtain military equipment from whoever will provide it. Indeed, as has been made clear by the Ukrainian left, particularly the militants of Sotsialnyi Rukh, the defeat of Russia’s military aggression is a prerequisite for the democratic and social development of Ukraine and we should support their efforts to achieve that outcome.

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

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...