France
Taking stock of the seriousness of the situation
The conjuncturally more favourable political situation immediately after the elections has enabled the responses of the NFP (New Popular Front, formed to contest the June 2024 legislative elections) to be highlighted, as well as the debates around its proposals. But it cannot make us forget the real relationship of forces, which requires us to confront certain major strategic questions. Patrick Le Moal looks back at recent electoral developments to draw conclusions in terms of immediate tasks: unity, reconstruction of an emancipatory horizon, need for a political force... in order to stand up to neo-fascism.
The danger of a neo-fascist government is here, before us
In the first round of the 2017 legislative elections (in which 51 per cent of registered voters voted), around 3 million votes went to the FN. In the 2022 legislative elections (when 52.5 per cent of registered voters voted) the RN received 4.2 million votes, to which can be added the million of Reconquête (far-right party which won 7 per cent of the vote in the 2022 presidential election), or more than 5 million votes for the neo-fascist far right. In the first round of the 2024 legislative elections (where 66.7 per cent of registered voters voted), the RN collected 9.4 million votes, plus 1 million votes for the various far-right lists, or between 10 and 11 million votes for the neo-fascist far right.
In seven years, the number of voters for the far right has increased by 3.6 and represents 30 per cent of the votes cast, 20 per cent of of registered voters. Between 10 and 11 million votes are stabilized today for the RN and its supporters, and when abstainers vote, their number of votes increases, as evidenced by the 13 million for Le Pen in the second round of the 2022 presidential elections where the turn-out was 72 per cent.
These percentages are all the more worrying for us since the majority of these votes come from the working classes, the exploited and the oppressed, and that the Le Pen/Bardella duo has allowed them to obtain significant results in new parts of the electorate: young people, first-time voters, executives, the "CSP+" which are added to their support in the south of France and the devastated former industrial regions.
These results give the neo-fascists the means to be in the majority during the major electoral deadlines in the years to come, both the presidential and the legislative elections.
Although the "republican front" initiated by the NFP has prevented this happening, the current electoral system allows a political force obtaining 30 to 35 per cent of the votes in the first round to have an absolute majority in the National Assembly. The RN is therefore in a position to take possession of the cogs of the state apparatus, which would considerably change the relationship of forces and would represent a qualitatively different danger from what we have known since the Second World War.
These electoral results do not translate today into the construction of a neo-fascist mass party: outside of elections, the neo-fascist militant groups of the RN are not very much present in daily life, in social struggles.
But the climate created by the electoral victories of the RN, the constant increase in the level of violence of the positions taken and its polemical discourse gives free rein to racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, homophobic, transphobic and climate-sceptic prejudices, by clearly fascist organizations, violent far-right groups, but also at the level of individuals.
We have seen thousands of examples in recent months, from the uninhibited racist behaviours and ideas around us, in workplaces, including in environments with a strong left-wing tradition (among railway workers for example), the attempts at intimidation, including death threats on social networks, which have multiplied. All this indicates what a victory of the neo-fascists would mean for everyone, even if the electoral result has temporarily put these actual and potential attacks into perspective.
In the same way, we must take stock of the role that the Rural Coordination now plays and be concerned about its weight in direct action against environmentalist mobilisations, in particular during mobilisations against the basins or the A69 motorway.
Compared to the fascist currents of the 1930s, the RN did not take up the revolutionary aspect, the construction of the "new man", the upheaval of society. But the common ground with fascism is there, in defence of freedom of enterprise, of companies, of productivism in all its forms, against any autonomous class action, against democratic, associative, trade-union and political organizations, with at the ideological centre of gravity national preference, national identity, and racism in a country deeply marked by its colonial history.
The RN is today mainly built as an institutional force, increasingly integrated into the functioning of assemblies, municipalities, where they have elected representatives. One of their main concerns today is the capture of several hundred municipalities in 2026 in order to deeply anchor this evolution.
It already has significant support points within the state apparatus itself, as evidenced by its influence in the majority unions in the police and in the army. Let us not forget the column published in Valeurs Actuelles a year before the 2022 presidential election by some twenty generals, a hundred senior officers and a thousand other military personnel denouncing the "disintegration" of France, in particular "through a certain anti-racism" , "Islamism and the suburban hordes" and declaring themselves willing to support policies “defending the nation ". They added: "if nothing is done, laxity will continue to spread inexorably in society, ultimately causing an explosion and the intervention of our active comrades in a perilous mission to protect our civilizational values and safeguard our compatriots on the national territory". Le Pen was quick to endorse these analyses and invite their authors to join her movement.
Since then, the number of senior civil servants rallying to the RN and its perspectives has increased, and it is accepted that almost the entire state apparatus would "loyally" serve a government led by neo-fascists, as was the case when Pétain came to power in 1940.
On a series of defining political issues, the RN has established its hegemony, relayed by almost all the media,and governments, on the "immigration problem", Islamophobia, security and repressive policies that infringe on freedoms, on punitive ecology, wokism , etc. We are witnessing a “shift to the far right " of the right and of Macronism One only has to look at the conditions under which the Barnier government was formed. Added to this is the systematization of shameless lies, verbal attacks, symbolic aggressions by governments that brutalize working-class people, a whole political violence that can only find expression on the political and electoral terrain one day or another.
A part of the bourgeoisie is in favour of a libertarian evolution of neoliberalism, centred on the destruction of what remains of the "welfare state" and the limitation of state functions to repression. It views favourably those neofascists who seem useful to it in the realization of this project. Beyond this current, the relations of employers’ organizations with the RN have evolved, because neoliberal policies directed against the working classes impose increasingly harsh class confrontations, in which such a current can be useful. If in 2022 the Medef (employers’ organisation) called for a vote for Macron to block the FN in the second round of the presidential elections on the grounds that its programme risked placing the country "in a dead end", nothing of the sort happened in 2024 when the possibility of the RN being in the majority was much greater.
According to surveys, nearly 20 per cent of employers close to the Medef voted for the RN in the first round [1], and the CGPME (organization of small and medium-sized businesses) blandly notes that the RN scares companies less than the NFP. Official and informal meetings between the RN and employer leaders, and Bardella ’s reasonable statements to the Medef confirm this development.
One indicator does not lie: the rise in the stock market the day after the first round of the legislative elections which placed the RN in the lead.
This general evolution is not specific to France: today authoritarian, even dictatorial, governments and regimes, a significant number of which have similar references to the RN, dominate the world. This is indeed a global evolution of the mode of domination of capital, in which the rise of the RN is integrated.
If the danger is there, it is not a question of lamenting, but of measuring this situation, of understanding its causes and what is driving it, in order to act effectively. History is never written in advance, it fundamentally depends on the action of those below, of those who refuse this dominant order.
The United Left is electorally overtaken by the RN
In the first round of the 2017 legislative elections (where 51 per cent of registered voters voted), more than 6 million votes were cast for the various lists of what is now the NFP, twice as many as the number of votes for the FN. The LFI, by obtaining 2.5 million votes, was close behind the FN (3 million).
In the 2022 legislative elections (where 52.5 per cent of registered voters voted) the NUPES (front of left parties) received 5.8 million votes, to which we could add a million other votes for forces that are today in the NFP, it was still more than the 5 million votes for the neo-fascist far right, but far from double!
In the first round of the 2024 legislative elections (where 66.7 per cent of registered voters voted), the NFP received 9 million votes, for the first time historically fewer votes than the neo-fascist far right.
In seven years, while the number of voters for the neo-fascists has increased by 3.6, going from 3 to 10/11 million votes, that of the political left, all tendencies combined, went from 6 to 9 million. This is the raw reality, far from the percentages and the results in MPs, which form a kind of optical illusion.
We can use the political dynamic created by this optical illusion produced by the electoral system of the Fifth Republic, which allows the NFP, which collected 9 million votes, to have 178 deputies while the RN, which collected 9.4 million votes, only has 125, not to mention the fact that the Macronists of Ensemble, with 6.5 million votes in the first round, have 150 deputies. But we cannot mistake the illusion for reality, which in one way or another always catches up with us.
To determine our action in a situation where the NFP, which brings together all the left parties, from the social-liberal left to the "left for a radical change", receives fewer votes than the RN, we must start from this reality, using all the means at our disposal, to change this relationship of forces, deconstruct the most violent attacks against the working classes of recent years and obtain some improvements that would modify the relationship of forces between the classes in favour of the exploited and the oppressed.
The bourgeoisie draws the conclusion: anything but the NFP
Neoliberal policies have crushed the electoral weight of the right-wing institutional bourgeois parties and Macronism , knowing that the latter has integrated the most right-wing part of the socialists who have rallied to neoliberalism. In 2017, this pole alone was more important than the other two combined, with more than 12 million votes (including 6.4 million for Macron’s République en Marche alone) against 6 million for the left and 3 million for the FN.
Between 2017 and 2024 this pole lost more than 3 million votes, while the left gained 3 million and the RN gained more than 7 million.
Today the three poles are between 9 and 11 million, but that of the right and Macronism has become smaller than the other two and the radicalization of votes has benefited the neo-fascists more.
The results in the European elections and especially in the 2024 legislative elections occur without the dynamic effect of the presidential election, but show that electoral volatility has its limits: there is indeed a fundamental evolution of the political situation, which goes well beyond the political crisis, of which it is only an illustration. Consent to the capitalist order, to neoliberal policies has been shaken, but this has mainly benefited the neofascists. If there has always been a right-wing vote in the working class [2], "this conservative fraction, which was Gaullist, has shifted to the far right to a large extent. Another part, abstentionist, has also shifted. And above all, there is a generational effect [3]. "
This is what was understood by the bourgeoisie, which in this situation will always prefer the RN to the NFP and therefore will prefer to organize its class domination with the RN.
This has already started on the fringes with Ciotti’s rallying [4], and we can see that the transfer of votes from LR to RN has been greater than those towards an LFI candidate ,when they were opposed.
This is also demonstrated by the fact of making public the dinners of RN leader Bardella with Edouard Philippe (former Prime Minister) and Lecornu (Minister of Armies) which took place in the home of a former member of LR who is a close adviser of Macron. This did not create any crisis, nor even much discontent within the right and in Macronist circles.
Nor were there any reactions to the publication of information on the "Pericles project" [5] which organizes the establishment at all levels of power of an RN/conservative right alliance, by investing 150 million euros over 10 years to make their ideas the majority, in particular through think tanks and media, to identify priority elections (helping to win more than 1,000 town halls, including 300 by the RN, before the 2027 presidential/legislative elections), by providing a reserve of political personnel by means of training schools.
At the European level, the far right, which sometimes increases its number of votes significantly (France, Italy, Germany, Spanish State, Portugal) heads two governments, in Hungary and Italy, and participates in several governments with the parliamentary right, in Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and Croatia [6].
Time for questioning, reflection and action
On the side of those who fight against exploitation and oppression in any form whatsoever, the absolute prerequisite for any discussion, because the divergences within the left are very real on many issues, is to refuse to continue as before, as if this risk did not exist, as if our past action had been commensurate with this risk. Let us refuse the policy of the ostrich!
Many choices and much behaviour show that the neo-fascist threat is not taken seriously by many political currents [7]. However, if the current situation is of course the product of the evolutions of capitalism, ecological crises, the evolution of global power relations, it is also to a certain extent that of the policies implemented by the left, all the left, from the most right-wing currents to the most radical organizations!
The starting point for the discussion on the political and social deadlines to come can only be the idea that we have failed, and that we are all, each one according to our size and our means, on our responsibilities, called upon to take our responsibilities to prevent this advance of neo-fascists in the political field. Continuing as before will not respond to the present challenge: to obstruct the RN’s accession to state power.
For the majority currents of the NFP, can we say that the divisions and petty manoeuvres experienced during the European elections are permanently behind us? Were the motivations behind the formation of the NFP first to block the RN, as the vast majority of working-class voters on the left wanted (and as expressed by the pressure that was then exerted on the leaderships of the parties) or to save as many MP positions as possible in the National Assembly? To what extent did the political left use threats to save itself rather than taking into account the seriousness of the situation? At the very least, the question arises when we see, even at the time of the elections, the energy spent on the purges at LFI, the refusal of many candidates to run united campaigns, each party campaigning without seeking to involve the others, even less by setting up open support committees, or even by omitting to refer to the NFP, when that was the popular aspiration, and more broadly the absence of any mention of the RN danger in many professions of faith and declarations.
Although LFI allowed a political response to be expressed on a mass scale in opposition to neoliberalism and partly redefined the balance of power within the left, the Socialist Party emerged reinvigorated from the last episodes, with a renaissance of social liberalism which was even integrated into the NFP (Hollande- Glucksman ), and above all the new equilibrium on the left did not prevent the contestation of the existing order from being mainly captured by the neofascists.
The social liberals, split between those who were ready to negotiate a place in a government and those who think that only the NFP can allow them to rebuild themselves by erasing their policies in government for the last 30 years, are now already preparing for the presidential election, with each group seeking to put into orbit a candidate capable of being in the second round by getting ahead of LFI.
LFI’s strategy is centred on the presidential election and the prospect of a second round that would pit Jean-Luc Mélenchon (JLM) against Marine Le Pen, so all attacks are focused on Macron. However, this project seems extremely risky without a shift in the relationship of forces, which is only possible thanks to powerful popular mobilizations. We cannot replay the same policy in 2027 as in 2022 and 2017 because JLM’s position has deteriorated. However, all of LFI’s political choices are based around reproducing the same scenario. And even if victory were to occur, it would still be necessary to obtain an absolute majority in the National Assembly, which is less and less likely, a majority that would not prevent the fierce resistance of the bourgeoisie and imperialist institutions to any anti-liberal policy.
On the far left, the existence of an anti-capitalist and unitary current has enabled the political presence of a socialist, ecosocialist response, but without being able to influence the global relationship of forces.
For the union organizations, divided and weakened, the defeats that have accumulated since the victory of the youth movement against the CPE in 2006, despite very massive mobilizations, for example in 2010, 2015 and 2023, require a redefinition of the modalities of action. Since the success of 1995, the mobilizations have succeeded in delaying and hindering the counter-reforms, the attacks against workers, limiting the damage, but have never made it possible to win.
Feminist and environmentalist mobilizations have led to victories (Notre-Dame-Des-Landes, the Me Too wave), to advances in political struggles, in ideological battles, but do not today play a role in structuring the social movement on a mass scale.
The immense mobilisation of the Yellow Vests, due both to its largely spontaneous nature and to the delay taken by the organised workers’ movement and the currents of emancipation in understanding its importance, not only did not have any positive political repercussions, but electorally benefited to a large extent the RN, which had nevertheless kept its distance from it.
The mobilizations against systemic racism and police violence have shown the readiness to fight of a part of the youth, but also outside of significant structures.
On the causes that lead to this situation, seen from the side of those below
We are still feelingi the deep effects of neoliberal policies of destruction of working class concentrations, imposition of mass unemployment, impoverishment of important sectors of the working classes, repeated attacks on the achievements of the struggles of the twentieth century and the organizations that emerged from them, the destruction of work collectives by policies of individualization of employees, which means that workplaces are less and less centres for structuring collective action.
The acceptance by social democracy of the neoliberal framework at the time when the so-called "socialist" societies resulting from the revolutions of the twentieth century were disappearing after the fall of the Berlin Wall, as well as the transition to capitalism in China, led to the disappearance on a mass scale of the idea that it is possible to build from those below a society of peace, without exploitation or oppression, an emancipated ecosocialist society . Because a new factor intervenes with all its weight: the ecological crisis, which has upset both current societies and the socialist project. Because there can be no emancipation without a profound transformation of the productive system to reduce material production.
The conjunction of these briefly summarized processes explains this drift of a significant part of the working classes. Without hope of a better world built all together, the refusal or fear of downgrading, and the search for the foreign scapegoat have set in. The RN vote, particularly in the working classes, feeds on these fears, just like, pell-mell, the refusal to see disappear a world where public services allow a better life, where workers through their activity create human progress, where peasants dominate nature, where effort makes it possible to have a house, where the sacrifices of parents offer a better future to their children, but also where men dominate women, where France does not let itself be led by European technocrats, where whites are superior to men and women of colour, where "our country" dominates the colonies to be civilized.... It is a vote against decline, against the loss of what could appear as a solution to live better.
"In a period when a society or state appears to be in irreversible decline, its political, economic and cultural systems failing to adapt or progress... for individuals, this translates into a sense of disillusionment and helplessness, as larger historical forces render personal efforts seemingly futile, leading to recurring failures in their aspirations for a prosperous life. [8]".
Why have left-wing activists, whoever they may be, not measured the extent of the neo-fascist electoral wave that has just spread? To answer this question is to question the nature of the link that we have, each at our own level, with the mass of the exploited and the oppressed.
However, the warnings were numerous and multiple. Surveys on the sociology of votes show a steady rise in the votes of manual and white-collar workers for neo-fascists since 1988, from 17 to 57 per cent for manual workers, from 14 to 44 per cent for white-collar workers. Until 2012, the cumulative votes for left-wing candidates were higher than those for neo-fascists in these two categories (for manual workers 47 per cent as against 22 per cent,for white-collar workers the figures are 42 and 29 per cent).
Since 2017, votes for neo-fascists have equalled or exceeded votes for the left in both categories. This year, among manual workers, the RN vote is more than double the NFP vote (57 par cent as against 21 per cent ), and also clearly among white-collar workers (44 as against 30 per cent). The vote for the NFP only exceeds the RN in intermediate professions (by 35 tp 31 per cent) and executives (34 to 21 per cent), among young people under 24 (48 to 33 per cent) and 24-35 year-olds (38 to 32 per cent).
This is a confirmation of the fact that left-wing parties that have relationships focused on electoral deadlines and that establish links within the framework of the functioning of institutions (parliament, town halls, etc.) have a strained relationship with the great mass of working-class communities Including LFI: the left that breaks with social liberalism, which has a real involvement in many mobilizations and has a real militant dynamic, remains focused on electoral deadlines and rhythms, with a central place for elected representatives. Seeking to create a buzz on the networks, to obtain votes in elections does not follow the same logic as working to organize daily struggles, work environments, living environments, to strive to deserve trust in the heat of collective action.
And the anti-capitalist currents are too weak to occupy this space effectively.
In the sectors where they are present, the trade union organisations are much closer to the workers, which explains the reactions, calls for voting and various positions taken: their leaders are aware of the pressure of the neo-fascist vote in the workplace.
The unions mobilized during these 2024 elections as has never happened before. The result is generally positive, because the vote for the NFP candidates in the first round of the legislative elections by people who declare themselves close to a union is in the majority: [9] for the FSU (76 per cent), the CGT (61 per cent), Solidaires (52 per cent),in first place for FO (37 per cent), the CFDT (35 per cent, but still 29 per cent for the Macronists). The vote for the RN remains important, 17 per cent for those close to the CFDT, the CGT and Solidaires, 27 per cent for FO and 26 per cent for the UNSA which had nevertheless called to defeat the RN. Only the FSU escapes this situation (4 per cent vote RN).
The developments over the last ten years are interesting and show that work on the neo-fascist danger can have an effect.
For those close to the CGT, the vote for the FN/RN (17 per cent) has decreased since the first round of the 2022 presidential election [10] where it reached 26 per cent (15 per cent in 2017, 9 per cent in 2012).
For those close to the CFDT, the vote on the left has not been in the majority since 2002 (with the exception of the broad support for Hollande in 2012: 56 per cent), that for the Macronists, which reached 48 per cent in 2017, and 44 per cent in 2022 is decreasing, while still remaining at 29 per cent and that for the FN/RN the vote has evolved: 7 per cent in 2017, 18 per cent in 2022, and still at 17% per cent today.
It is important to keep in mind that trade union organisations do not have permanent and direct contact with all workers, given the fragmentation of the workforce over the past 30 years: at least half of workers work in small establishments in both the tertiary and industrial sectors. The fragmentation of all work structures, the individualisation of schedules, teleworking and uberisation increase this distance.
However, the working classes are active in this country, unlike many others in Europe. And this on all fronts, in the most diverse forms: Yellow Vests, young people from working-class neighbourhoods facing police violence and more recently in the mobilizations of solidarity with Palestine, mobilization for the defence of pensions, demonstrations and ecological actions, feminist movements, LGBTI, peasant movements ... there is not a single layer of the exploited and oppressed which does not react in opposition to neoliberal policies.
But if the neo-fascists are not visible in social mobilizations, this does not make them disappear from the global political field. Strictly economic mobilization, not linked to the overall political struggle, is not enough to produce an emancipatory politicization: how many workers against the pension reform voted RN?
We must tackle directly political issues head on, with the conviction that the demonization of neo-fascists alone, while it may homogenize a portion of the working classes, will not be enough to change the overall balance of power. It is essential to act on the springs of the popular neo-fascist vote, to wage a battle for the right to free movement, because immigration is a good for society and not a problem, against the conceptions of repressive and exclusionary secularism, for international solidarity, social policies, public services, etc. and to reconnect with these parts of the working classes on the basis of needs, without concessions on the substance.
How can the exploited and the oppressed resist this spirit of the times, avoid catastrophe and rebuild a collective emancipatory project, rebuild another political hegemony?
"We need to build hegemony on the left and in the country in a single movement. Now hegemony is the opposite of exclusion: it supposes to aggregate diverse political and social forces, while exercising on them what Gramsci called a capacity of direction, and imposing our themes on them." [11]
To stand together in the broadest political and social unity
Faced with danger, the defensive electoral surge that prevented the RN from taking power mobilised, to ensure the success of the NFP candidacies, well beyond only the political parties that were members of this union built in a few days. All the activist circles were able to close ranks, despite their differences, their numerous and major divergences, in a rare unity, enabling and accompanying an exceptional mobilization of the popular classes worried about the consequences of a defeat.
The unity of the camp of those below has thus been affirmed as a pole of resistance, the only real one. The RN in power would delimit this camp, by repressing all its members in one form or another, including currents as reformist and right-wing as the PS and the Ecologists. We would all be in the same boat.
It was necessary to join this powerful movement for the victory of the NFP, essential as an immediate dam. But we must not stop at this political sequence.
The situation that is opening up is highly unstable, without a simple majority in parliament, with a president and leaders ready to do anything to keep their powers, a bourgeoisie determined to continue to impose its views, including with the RN.
The unity that was achieved almost naturally during the elections must be firmly anchored in order to face the political crises that will follow.
To do this, let’s start with what has existed for a few weeks. The challenge of the coming weeks and months is to sustainably carry out joint action against the common enemy in the broadest unitary framework, in which committees with the NFP as a reference are organized at the grassroots level, then at the national level in major joint initiatives, including all forms of resistance to the neo-fascist danger: unions, associations, all existing collective forms, in which political parties, both organizations breaking with neoliberalism, capitalism and the most reformist, are only one of the components, without imposing their agenda and their needs. The structuring of unity at all levels requires that it not be focused on supporting the action of parliamentarians, but on the minimal application of the NFP programme, and support everything that goes in this direction, unifying in action around the major demands of the NFP programme which oppose both the neoliberal policies of the Macronists and the RN project.
Are the NFP member parties, different as they may be, ready to get involved in such a perspective? They are electoral machines, none of them seek to rely on permanent, democratically organized militant collectives, which seek to permanently structure popular sectors, which set themselves the objective of organizing those below based on their daily needs, which breaks isolation and despair. So that will have to change!
Such a united political and social front is essential to change the global relationship of forces to break all processes of individualization, to rebuild everywhere militant groups that weave collective responses on a daily basis, in workplaces and neighbourhoods, on a mass scale, without waiting for elections.
The NFP has raised a certain hope and a significant mobilization that must not be disappointed. If division resurfaces, a second time after the NUPES, the failure would then be even more stinging and the electoral consequences in the medium term would be all the more serious. It is up to all of us to avoid this.
Divide the opposing camp, that of "anything but the NFP"
The overall relationship of forces is not in our favour, we must do everything to strengthen our camp, and weaken as much as possible that of "anything but the NFP".
Unifying our camp is the starting point, but to go further, we must be able to divide the opposing camp, do everything to accentuate the divisions between them, without any illusions make occasional alliances, formalized or not, on all occasions, on all terrains.
Whether on anecdotal issues such as the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games, on so-called social issues, on international choices, all political opportunities that arise which accentuate the divergences within the opposing bloc are good to take.
Reconstructing an emancipatory perspective
This is a long-term task, to be carried out with our back to the wall, but it is essential if the objective is to truly reverse the relationship of forces. The question of a new political expression of the exploited and the oppressed, of a reconstruction of an emancipatory movement of the twenty-first century was at the heart of the reflections during the launch of the NPA. Its failure does not make disappear the need, which is today more essential than ever for those below, for the constitution of the "class for itself".
The socialist project needs a broad overhaul, at a time of "double historical crisis: the crisis of the socialist alternative in the face of the multifaceted crisis of capitalist "civilization" [12]. The ecological crisis is shaking our ability to imagine the future. The promise of a bright future thanks to progress, to industrial civilization has created a powerful imaginary that is behind us. We must recreate a credible, attractive common destiny, a unification of the popular classes around a positive project, around desirable axes, an ecosocialist revolution, to "put an end to the social and democratic regressions that accompany global capitalist expansion, but also to save humanity from an ecological catastrophe unprecedented in human history. These two objectives are inextricably linked.” [13] .Non-dogmatic revolutionary Marxists, who nourish their reflections with the experiences of struggles, can play an important role in the development of such a project, provided that they show humility, because the refoundation can only exist with the involvement of all the movements of struggle against all forms of domination and oppression.
The objective that we must set for ourselves is the construction of a movement, a grouping, an alliance, a front, ... a party with an emancipatory project, carrying a perspective of breaking with capitalism and productivism and of building an emancipated, ecosocialist society, and which places at the centre of its activity the response to popular expectations through mobilization, through self-organization in workplaces, neighbourhoods, associations, collective life ,without subjecting them to electoral rhythms, while understanding that these deadlines are important in building a relationship of forces .
Such a political instrument, which aims to organize tens, hundreds of thousands of oppressed people to be effective, can only be born from a maturation within all the most diverse political, social, and union experiences, and not by adhering to a ready made project, however intelligent it may be. It must rethink the articulation between all forms of action against the system: in elections, institutions, on the economic level, collective organization in workplaces, neighbourhoods, the place of cooperatives, concrete solidarity actions, in other words question the form and function of the entire traditional repertoire, that is to say, for example, redefine and rearrange the functions of a meeting, a gathering, a demonstration, a strike, a leaflet, a poster, a site, actions of civil disobedience, direct action, to give a global meaning to what is too often practised in a ritual way. The goal should be the multidimensional redefinition of the meaning and place of political initiatives and campaigns. For each initiative, define the objective(s), and measure what has been gained or at least advanced. Think about actions and tools so that they allow us to experience our collective power, and therefore strengthen it, with self-organization playing a decisive role. It is in the back-and-forth movement between reflections and practices that a political alternative can be born. The inventiveness of the "Earth Uprisings" shows us the way.
To tackle this task, we must fully appreciate its difficulties.
LFI occupies a central and essential place as an anti-liberal left-wing force. Its existence has made it possible to combat the orientations of the social-liberal left, to the emergence of deputies from the social movement and the mobilization of a part of the youth. It has a real audience in a certain number of working-class neighbourhoods, but its relative place within the left has declined, undoubtedly partly in connection with its practice towards the social movement.
At the beginning of the huge mobilization of 2023 against the pension reform, JLM thought he was in a position to lead the movement without the union organizations, LFI was at the initiative of a major demonstration, but it was not commensurate with the mobilization capacities of the inter-union coordination. And when, led by the latter, the movement took on its full scale, LFI blocked by its policy of obstruction in parliament [14]
October 25, 2024
P.S.
If you like this article or have found it useful, please consider donating towards the work of International Viewpoint. Simply follow this link: Donate then enter an amount of your choice. One-off donations are very welcome. But regular donations by standing order are also vital to our continuing functioning. See the last paragraph of this article for our bank account details and take out a standing order. Thanks.
Footnotes
[1] https://harris-interactive.fr/opinion_polls/legislatives-2024-sondage-jour-du-vote-1er-tour-le-vote-selon-la-proximite-syndicale/
[2] It is estimated that in 1981, 30 per cent of workers voted for Giscard d’Estaing in the second round against Mitterrand.
[3] Xavier Vigna, « La gauche n’a pas de stratégie nationale pour reconquérir ses territoires perdus », Mediapart, 28 juillet 2024..
[4] Eric Ciotto was leader of the traditional right party, Les Républicains, LR. He took a small minority of his party with him to support the RN
[5] L’ Humanité July 19, 2024
[6] Léon Cremieux Léon Cremieux “Elections au parlement européen : poussée réactionnaire et noyaux de résistance” Inprecor ,July-August 2024.
[7] Olivier Le Cour Grandmaison “Partisan lefts: political and electoral sleepwalking”.
[8] Daniel Bastard, « La Chine est-elle en train de tomber dans les poubelles de l’histoire ? » Courrier International 22 July 2024
[9] https://harris-interactive.fr/opinion_polls/legislatives-2024-sondage-jour-du-vote-1er-tour-le-vote-selon-la-proximite-syndicale/
[10] Jean-Marie Pernot, « Proximités syndicales et vote politique, Le premier tour de l’élection présidentielle » https://syndicollectif.fr/proximites-syndicales-et-vote-politique/
[11] Cédric Durand, Razmig Keucheyan et Stefano Palombarini, « Construire la gauche de rupture« , Contretemps, 22 July 2024.
[12] Draft of the “Manifesto of revolutionary Marxism in the era of the ecological and social destruction of capitalism”.
[13] Idem.
[14] See CGT leader Philippe Martinez’s statement of February 19, 2023: "the fact of not having gone to article 7 so that everyone could display their position is a problem (...). It was necessary to make the deputies, each deputy, face their responsibilities (...). Through numerous incidents - let’s put it like that - we have discussed these incidents more than the heart of the problem and what is being debated in the street" with the union mobilization, he said, pointing to "political forces [which] are trying to replace the union organizations and to put themselves forward in relation to [those] who are marching in the street."
Patrick Le Moal
Patrick Le Moal is a member of the Fourth International and a leading member of the New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA, France).
France
“Progressing by Grassroot Networks”
How does the left in France confront the global "right-wing" turn? Can leftist organizations supporting Ukraine develop a common strategy? Researcher and longtime activist Catherine Samary discusses the role of the left in today’s French politics for Posle Media.
Posle: Before we turn to the discussion of the war in Ukraine and prospects for left internationalism, let’s talk about the recent developments in your home country. How do you analyse the current political situation in France and the role that left-wing politics might play in it?
Catherine Samary: Michel Barnier’s new government combines two core elements: racism and attacks on social rights. The latter is evident in the ongoing parliamentary debates over the 2025 budget and social security funding. Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (Rassemblement National) has played a key role in these discussions, not least due to the fact that no single party has managed to achieve a stable majority in the French parliament. Even though the result of the New Popular Front (Nouveau Front Populaire) in the recent legislative election, which followed the dissolution of the Assembly last June, was unexpectedly high — and most welcome — it is still only a minor and relative victory.
This situation is unlikely to change unless the various forces within the New Popular Front come together, consolidate their victory, and start a large-scale mobilization. This could be achieved through the creation of local political alliances across the entire country that would be focused on concrete struggles. We should not forget that mass mobilizations against attacks on the social system are still possible — and so is the collapse of the government itself.
Against all evidence, the government wants people to believe that it has not introduced an “austerity budget” plan, but rather “a budget [plan] to avoid austerity” — at least, this is what the Minister of Finance Antoine Armand declared on the 21st of October. National Assembly deputies have proposed over 3,500 amendments to this plan! And yet, disagreements between different political alliances in the parliament are obvious. At the moment, no single one of them has a stable majority — these political struggles are indicative of what awaits us during the 2027 presidential election. In the current situation, there is a strong chance that the government will once again resort to Article 49.3 of the Constitution to pass the budget without a parliamentary vote. Previously, this procedure enabled the French government under Élisabeth Borne to push through the pension reform bill. However, the decision to use it now would pose a risk of early collapse for the government both due to internal divisions among the ruling classes and the general unpopularity of these measures.
And what better way is there to “divide and rule” than by designating a scapegoat — immigrants? Valérie Pécresse, who has held numerous high-level positions for different right-wing political organizations, has become an emblem of the vile demagoguery that drives much of today’s right-wing factions. On the 14th of October, she had the audacity to declare: “How do you plan to explain to the French that you are going to ask for more sacrifices from them, to pay more taxes, to benefit from fewer and fewer public services, while allowing immigration-related expenses to keep rising?” She added: “When we are too generous, we end up attracting people we do not want to welcome.” Minister of the Interior Bruno Retailleau shares the same philosophy — his immigration bill is directly inspired by the National Rally’s ideas. It is the duty of the left today to take a strong stance on this front as well and to stand firmly against all forms of racism.
— During the elections this year some of the international issues — in particular, those related to the wars in Ukraine and Palestine — were included in the programmes of all political parties. Would you say that international issues are politically divisive in France? Are they an important electoral factor in national political life?
— I would answer “yes” to the first question, but for the second question I am inclined to say “no.” Political divisions on international issues have never played a central role in the electoral campaign or had any impact on its outcome. As I mentioned earlier, domestic issues have overwhelmingly dominated the political scene, especially in the wake of the crisis triggered by Emmanuel Macron’s decision to call early elections. His choice to appoint Michel Barnier as Prime Minister in September — instead of Lucie Castets, the candidate proposed by the New Popular Front, which came first in the legislative elections — highlighted the focus on domestic issues even more prominently. Macron’s choice had little to do with international matters: it was strictly about pushing forward his social agenda.
It is also worth noting that parliamentary decisions about the sums allocated to Ukraine were made back in March and did not generate much controversy during the elections. That being said, a lot of things regarding France’s foreign policy are up for debate. The country’s contributions to European and global aid packages to Ukraine are minimal. The current military budget is more allocated towards nuclear programs, furthering neocolonial interests in Africa (the “Françafrique” policy), and military support for Israel, rather than towards Ukraine. [1] The lack of real debate on these issues does not imply that they are of secondary importance; rather, it reflects the poor state of parliamentary “democracy” and the limited transparency around France’s foreign policy.
— And internally, within political organizations?
— I am not the best person to give a detailed answer here, as I don’t closely follow the inner workings of every party across the spectrum. However, what I can say at the very least is that their “political life” lacks democratic transparency. Most of the time, the only thing we see are public “positions” taken by party leaders — and these sometimes shift in noticeable, even awkward ways.
This happened with the right-wing approach to the war in Ukraine. After the invasion, which was widely recognized as an act of aggression, Marine Le Pen, as a representative of the National Rally, had to readjust her public position to distance herself from Vladimir Putin. Macron had to do the same, although this shift did not result from internal debates among his supporters or within his party Renaissance (RE). The same goes for his recent, cautious criticism of Israel’s politics in Gaza and his call to recognize the rights of the Palestinians. Yet, overall, there is a consensus among the right on demonizing so-called “Islamo-leftism” as a tactic to discredit any form of support for Palestine.
As for the left-wing parties — from the communists and socialists to La France Insoumise (FI) — there are, of course, political disagreements on various international issues, including ongoing military conflicts, both between the parties and within them. Some people on the radical left, in France and abroad, frame the Russo-Ukrainian war as a clash between NATO (the United States, essentially) and Russia — thus overlooking Ukraine itself. They see it through the “main enemy” lens and reduce the equation to a single “imperialist enemy” — in particular, the United States and NATO. As Gilbert Achcar puts it, this view might eventually come down to the following conclusion: “The enemy of my (main) enemy is my friend.” This explains Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s (leader of La France Insoumise) once somewhat sympathetic stance toward Putin compared, for instance, to Raphaël Glucksmann’s active campaign against Kremlin’s politics in his role as a socialist deputy in the European Parliament.
Given this range of political sentiments and positions within the parties composing the New Popular Front, it was reassuring to see straightforward, positive statements on foreign policy in their last program. They have taken a firm stance on “promoting peace in Ukraine,” specifically by “unwaveringly defending Ukraine’s sovereignty” through arms deliveries and asset seizures from Russian oligarchs. As far as Gaza is concerned, the New Popular Front has called for “an immediate ceasefire” and a “just and lasting peace,” condemning the “complicit support” of the French government for Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies. The program demands effective sanctions against Israel, along with official recognition of the state of Palestine in line with the United Nations resolutions. However, while these positions are important and encouraging, we have not seen much of a real political “battle” in the parliament or during the elections to make these statements more concrete.
— What do you think about the political situation in France in the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022? What discussions took place within your organization, the New Anticapitalist Party?
— The invasion was certainly a major political shock that raised serious questions across all political organizations. As the war continued, these questions have only deepened, and no clear consensus has emerged. Many pre-war conceptions continue to be actively debated — though, unfortunately, many of these views have not been updated. Even the basic condemnation of the Russian aggression has not led to the development of a unified position and approach across the political spectrum, especially regarding NATO or the European Union’s planned expansions to Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and the Western Balkans.
Before the invasion, Macron (much like Putin!) had considered NATO a “brain-dead” organization. His conclusion was based on NATO’s withdrawal from Afghanistan as well as internal disagreements among member countries regarding Russia and its energy resources. Ironically, the war has led to NATO’s expansion, harsher sanctions against Russia, and the legitimization of increased military budgets. At the same time, support for Ukraine has been hypocritically instrumentalized. As I said, a large share of the military budget in France (and in the United States, for that matter) is not actually directed toward Ukraine. There is also significant uncertainty around the United States’ concrete international commitments, which Macron sees as an opportunity to promote France’s arms industry in Europe and beyond. However, all this is not up for debate among the right.
On the left, including the New Anticapitalist Party (NPA), there has been limited debate around what Achcar calls the “New Cold War,” even though it is a necessary discussion. The prevailing logic within the NPA has been the following: even without a clear understanding of the rapidly changing world around us, without understanding the connections between various crises, and lacking viable socialist, anti-capitalist alternatives at national, European, and global levels, we can still fight for grassroots internationalism grounded in the defense of universal equal rights. Echoing our comrades from Sotsialnyi Rukh (Social Movement) in Ukraine, we declared: “From Ukraine to Palestine, occupation is a crime!” We viewed and condemned the war in Ukraine as an aggression by Putin’s Russia against Ukraine’s very right to exist. We stand with our comrades from political organizations and labor unions in Russia and Ukraine, while maintaining independence from “our national governments” and disapproving of their neoliberal practices. We oppose Russian imperialism, shaped — among other things — by czarist and Stalinist legacies, while affirming our stance against “all imperialisms.” We have also called for Ukraine’s debt to be canceled and, alongside our Ukrainian comrades, we have condemned any attempt by Western powers or the Zelensky government to exploit Ukrainian resistance against the Russian aggression as a pretext for imposing anti-social policies.
Practically, the NPA has supported Ukraine’s resistance, both armed and unarmed. We have recognized its legitimate right to request weapons (from those who manufacture them) for self-defense. Since March 2022, we have been involved in the European Network in Solidarity with Ukraine and Against the War (ENSU), where we remain active both at the European level and through its French branch, working alongside progressive Ukrainian groups.
This does not mean there has been no debate or disagreement. While all of us agree on Ukraine’s right to request weapons for self-defense, several questions and dissensions emerged immediately: Is it politically justifiable for an anti-capitalist organization like ours to request arms from “our own bourgeoisie” and for a bourgeois government? Is it practically possible to call for military aid while also opposing militarism and military alliances like NATO?
Personally, I answered “yes” to both questions, as did the majority of the NPA members. Alongside other comrades, I represent the NPA within ENSU and work directly with leftist, feminist, and student groups in Ukraine engaged in multiple struggles. But this activism requires us to differentiate our position from both “militarist” attitudes and “abstract pacifism.” This is achievable by “politicizing” the arms debate, which entails nationalizing the arms industry so that military budgets and the use of weapons become an object of political debate.
To summarize: “yes” to arms delivery to Ukraine in solidarity; “no” to sales to dictatorships and oppressive regimes like Israel! ENSU recently discussed and adopted a statement on this issue, which will soon be available on its website.
— And what about Emmanuel Macron’s statements regarding the potential deployment of French troops in Ukraine?
— Macron himself admitted there was “no consensus” — and that is an understatement — on this idea. His suggestion was met with criticism, with many seeing it as dangerously escalatory, if not reckless. Still, Macron maintained that “in the face of a regime that excludes nothing, we must exclude nothing ourselves.” However, critics pointed out the discrepancy between Macron’s “commitment” to helping Ukraine and the limited aid that France has actually provided so far. They also highlighted the difference between “deploying troops,” which implies co-belligerency, and sending military personnel and technicians for support tasks, like managing foreign-supplied military equipment. Macron’s other semantic improvisations were heavily criticized as well, for example his statement that France and the European Union were entering a “war economy.” This notion doesn’t match reality, as current production systems haven’t undergone any such transformation.
As I mentioned earlier, another crucial issue is the need to politicize and increase transparency around military budgets. This requires analyzing what the military industry is really producing and sending to Ukraine, alongside the financial and material aid needed to support Ukraine’s actual “war economy.” If Ukraine’s economy remains state-run and dependent on Western aid tied to neoliberal conditions, it is bound to fail. This is why I support the “internal” strategy of the Ukrainian leftist organization Sotsialnyi Rukh, which criticizes the current trajectory of Zelensky’s government and instead prioritizes the popular and democratic resources of independent Ukraine itself.
— How have people reacted to Vladimir Putin’s repeated nuclear threats?
— Reactions have been mixed and have changed over time. Putin clearly knows that he is spreading fear this is exactly what he wants — and we cannot exclude the risk of a catastrophe. However, it is hard to imagine what “effective” use of nuclear weapons could look like from Putin’s perspective. So far, each of his “red lines” has shifted back in response to the Ukrainian military operations, including those on Russian territories, without triggering the nuclear retaliation he promised. Another reassuring factor has been China’s explicit veto against any use of nuclear weapons by its Russian ally.
Still, some “pacifists” continue to instrumentalize the fear of nuclear escalation as an argument against sending more weapons to Ukraine to avoid further “provoking” Putin!
— Are there ongoing discussions and debates in activist circles about France’s nuclear deterrent and its possible strategic uses?
— No, these debates are not — yet — taking place among activists, who are not necessarily in a position to have such discussions. There is justified political distrust toward our government, especially given France’s post- and neo-colonial history. Both this distrust and our necessary independence from the government make it hard to imagine how a radical, anti-capitalist organization like ours would ask Macron to use “his bomb” in the name of vaguely defined common interests. Journalists have questioned Macron about the French nuclear deterrent in a context of growing uncertainties surrounding the United States’ commitments: while he has not “ruled out” a form of European “mutualization” of France’s nuclear arsenal, he has insisted that command would remain under French control.
However, current discussions about “security” should extend far beyond nuclear deterrence. For instance: How should the military and police forces evolve? How can we exercise civilian, democratic control over their actions? The growing influence of far-right ideas within the French police force is particularly alarming. Likewise, the European left urgently needs to consider what a progressive, “alter-globalist” approach to “European defense” might look like. The ongoing crisis in global and European social forums has caused significant delay in this area, but there are efforts underway to revive a “European alternative public sphere.” This movement is essential, and we must support it to address these multidimensional “security” issues. I am a participant of a newly formed working group in France comprising left-wing “alter-globalist” activists working on these questions and committed to defending equal social and political rights — both individual, collective, and across national borders.
— Security issues do not solely concern international relations: the ultra-right, for instance, resort to threats, “attacks on the Arabs,” and even murders. What options does the left have to counter the rise of the far-right, which is one of this decade’s most serious challenges?
— Here too, it is crucial to examine how such factors as state structures of “legal violence,” the justice system, and the rise of fascist private militias interact in each country. Much depends on who is in power and the nature of current social struggles. Historically — and likely in the future — the key factor has been the ability of mass organizations, involving both men and women, to self-organize and unite in self-defense while conducting information and denunciation campaigns in the media. This topic is a central point of discussion within the “European alternative political space” that is currently being (re)built.
— What does it mean for the contemporary left to engage in international politics?
— Environmental threats are just as serious as attacks on social rights, with the poor being the most affected. The “contemporary left” is diverse and currently grappling with issues that weaken its capacity to respond to urgent problems. These issues stem from a series of crises: the crisis of countries that once pursued a socialist project — if not a reality — and those who identified with it, be that in Europe, China, or Cuba; the crisis of social-democratic movements, which have largely given up on transforming capitalist societies; and the crisis within the radical left, which often struggles, for diverse reasons, to offer viable alternatives to the system it criticizes and sometimes indulges in dogmatic, sectarian “vanguard” positions.
These widespread crises have also impacted the global and continental social forums working to invent new transnational modes of operation and action in a rapidly changing world-system. All these difficulties have led to significant political concessions and, at times, acceptance of a “lesser evil” logic. However, valuable assets persist across all the leftist currents I mentioned and beyond. From the radical left to the new social, feminist, eco-socialist, and antiracist movements, there is a wealth of accumulated experience and past struggles. While criticizing “vanguardism” is important when it attempts to substitute itself for social movements, it is equally important to reinforce pluralistic, democratic, international cooperation among anti-capitalist groups. These connections are currently limited, but they are vital for achieving a broad, pluralistic understanding of past challenges and mistakes we made.
It is crucial to progress forward by building strong grassroot international networks that focus on concrete issues. The European Network in Solidarity with Ukraine and the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) campaign in support of the Palestinian cause demonstrate that this is possible. Likewise, we need campaigns that address feminist, anti-racist, social justice, and environmental issues, which are essential to reestablishing a multi-issue, alternative space for rethinking globalization. This vision is taking shape in Europe, and while there is no magic solution, it is clear that failing to move in this direction will only leave us vulnerable to the rising threat of the far-right.
20 November 2024
Source: Posle Media.
Footnotes
[1] “Françafrique” also sounds like “France à fric,” meaning “a source of cash for France,” fric being French slang for “cash.”
