François Duval, LCR National Leadership

Last week a professional writer commented that a recent posting on this site had been translated verbatim from French Trotspeak into English. I’m paraphrasing but not by much. Well here’s the real deal. This piece will be appearing in the new Socialist Resistance magazine.

Last January, a vast majority of the delegates at the 17th national congress of the LCR have approved a new political perspective: the building of a broad anti-capitalist party. This decision is intimately related to the analysis of the political situation since the election of Nicolas Sarkozy as President. There are three main reasons:

  • the extremely aggressive attacks of French government and
    bosses against workers’ rights;
  • the failure of the traditional left;
  • the new rank occupied by the radical Left as a whole and, more specifically, by Olivier Besancenot and the LCR.

The electoral victory of Sarkozy can be mainly explained by his ability to convince people from working class and lower middle class that he really cares about their problems and his ability to convince people with a far right background that it was more efficient for them to vote for him rather than for the Front National. That’s why during the presidential campaign his central slogan was “work more, earn more”. It was a false claim but many people only heard “earn more”!

The most astonishing thing was his success when he endorsed many of the themes that were usually those of the Front National, especially about immigration and “law and order”. About a million of Jean-Marie Le Pen’s former voters shifted towards a vote in favour of Sarkozy. In return, repression against illegal immigrants has worsened and a lot of new drastic security laws have been passed. Promises addressed to racists and chauvinists have been kept. But promises addressed to popular layers of society have been broken while there have been a lot of very hard attacks: no increase of wages while prices are increasing every month, fiscal gifts for the rich and corporatations, as well as new measures against social legislation.

Sarkozy’s problem was to change his electoral victory into a social victory. He found that it was not so easy. In November 2007, a new “reform” – or more precisely, a counter reform… – of the retirement pension system of railways workers, tube and buses drivers caused the most important strike of railways workers ever. Of course, the main items of the reforms have been implemented. But, in May 2007, nobody would have forecast such a struggle. Actually the government seems to be stronger than it really is. Its politics can only cause more and more anger and many people are still willing to put up a fight. That is the first reason in favour of a new anti-capitalist party: people really need a party which stands up for their demands as faithfully as the right wing parties are true to bosses. That’s the second point – the traditional left can’t be that party.

The election of Nicolas Sarkozy was less a victory of the right wing parties than a defeat of Segolene Royal and the Socialist Party. Both the candidate and the SP (as well as its allies, CP and Greens) have been unable to convince people that their election would change something in their day-to-day life. After the election, the situation of the traditional Left became even worse: challenged by the measures passed by the government, they have been unable to be a genuine opposition. During the strikes in November 2007, they have been unable to be a leadership of the movement. The reason for that is obvious: they criticised the form of the measures and reforms; but they agreed with their substance. This situation has two consequences: a deepening crisis of the SP and increasing need and space for a new independent representation of the working class and social movements.

For the LCR, the perspective of a new party is not completely new. The first debates about it started fifteen years ago, after the fall of the Berlin wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of Stalinism and the intensification of the neo-liberal offensive in the framework of capitalist and corporate globalisation. An additional step was overcome in 1995, with the increasing electoral results of the far left and its significant influence during the big strikes in November and December 1995.

What is now needed is a party able to help the convergence of resistance and struggle. It needs to be able to build a generalised movement to change the relationship of forces and force political power and bosses to step back. Our understanding is that this kind of party must be a useful tool for organising fight and preparing a radical and/or revolutionary change of society.

Will it be a “revolutionary party” according to the traditional meaning of this word? What we intend to build is a party for class struggle, an independent party of the working class, a party mainly focused on mobilization rather than elections, a party for radical and/or revolutionary changes in society and for new politics committed to satisfy social needs rather than private profits, an anti-capitalist party. Most probably many issues related to strategy will remain open. One issue has to be clarified at the beginning of the process: the kind of relationship this party will have with the neo-liberal so called Socialist Party and its allies. The political basis of this party has to be an agreement about a programme of social emergency measures and a clear break-up with all neo-liberal parties, even those which define themselves as left-wing, socialist or social-democrat parties. The Brazilian and Italian experiences show how important it is to build on an open but clear basis.

That clarification was precisely the one that was lacking in 2007 during the debates with the Communist Party and various anti-liberal “collectives” in order to discover if a common candidate was possible for the presidential election. After the success of Olivier Besancenot, both in elections and in the aftermath of election, especially during the railway workers’ strike, we had a major opportunity not only to strengthen the LCR but, also, to give a broader and more ambitious answer to the crisis of the Left. So, in June 2007, the National Leadership of the LCR decided to raise the issue of a new party. In August, during the LCR Summer School, Olivier Besancenot invited everyone who is interested to join what will be a “constituent process”.

During the autumn, in many towns across the country, public meetings were organised to discuss this project. Meanwhile members of the LCR were
debating it as the main point on the agenda of the congress. The first balance sheet of these meetings is good. Many people seemed to be interested and found that a new radical left party is a “good idea”. Some problems have still to be addressed… and solved. Many people consider a new party favourably; but are they ready to be personally involved? Some others think that an honest party with genuine left ideas will be sufficient.

Our project is a little more than that: perhaps not a “Marxist revolutionary” party but, at least, a radical anti-capitalist one. Many people are interested at the moment but no other national political movement or party backs our project. So, we have been led to the idea that the beginning of the process will not be a debate or a negotiation with national political “partners” – which just don’t exist – but a process “from below”. Of course, we hope that people or political currents, especially among trade-unionists or activists of the social movements and individuals or tendencies from communist, socialist or anti-liberal background will be convinced by the first results achieved.

Another issue to be thought about is the kind of international relationship the new party will have.

However the main question is this – some people are ready to “build something” with the LCR’s activists but they want to build something really different, something that will be their own party, not just a new, enlarged LCR. So, we have to create mutual confidence, to raise the political issues that have to be raised, to propose our politics and, at the same time, to allow people with different political backgrounds – or without any political background – to get involved in the process and to control it.

By the way, one of the major consequences of a successful process will be the dissolution of the LCR, now a forty year-old revolutionary organisation… The LCR national congress has now adopted an appeal. In some towns or workplaces – and in some universities- local appeals have been written and committees for a new party have been created, with LCR and non-LCR members. There are also many common united slates for the March councils elections. The next step will be a national assembly of these committees in June or September to check the progress of the process and decide the agenda, include the date of the congress for the foundation of the party.

Anyhow, everybody is conscious it’s an ambitious but uncomfortable, difficult road!

But it’s a very exciting experience…

25 responses to “Towards a new anti-capitalist party in France”

  1. What chance the SWP follows the example of the LCR?

    All is needed is someone as handsome as Besancenot…

    Like

  2. Wel lthat is all very well, but it doesn’t address at all the issue of the relationship with the PCF, which still remains a serious progressive constituency, and which cannot be circumnavigated

    Like

  3. Here is a comment that was posed on SU blog from a PCF supporter that is worth thinking about

    1. http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1639#comment-40877
    2. Andy- it is difficult to talk about the LCR as an homogonous mass re their attitude to the issue of left unity/.PCF. Here in the Aude Department- a rural area that butts against the Mediterranean- the majority stream of the LCR made a clear decision to leave the League and rejoin the PCF, we in the PCF decided to allow them to join under their conditions, namely they are allowed to exist within the Party as an organised fraction. Patrick Roux, the ‘leader’ of the fraction, is now area secretary for the Narbonnne constituency and a well respected organiser- and incidentally the responsible person for Party education.
    Patrick and his coms made a clear rational decision- here in the Aude, total population around 250,000 the Greens have 61 members, the Socialists claim around 1,500 but mainly exists as an electoral machine 80% hold one elected position or more, the LCR have 13, the LO have, we guess, about 4 and the PCF have 997- including a regional Vice President, one Departmental assembly member, 26 mayors, and over 300 council members.
    The Party also has strong leadership in the CGT, both in the private and public sectors- rail in particular being a strong base. Even in the traditionally hostile rural economy the PCF has three leading comrades who are well respected- President of the small wine makers, President of the departmental wine Co-ops, and National President of Modef- the association of poor rural families. On top of that radical elements of the PCF are leading the fight against deportations( Sans Papiers,) and the networks hiding migrants with deportation orders, with around 20% of our members being Arabic or leftist Peid Noirs we are the only political party outside of the right with deep links into the Algerian communities, traditional Party stewards head the anti-war and peace movements, even Jose Bove’s Peasant Confederation is headed by dissidents, but still card carrying, members, mind you we spend a lot of useless energy arguing with right wing greens in the CF.
    How outside of the PCF can a small revolutionary organisation exists? In reality if you are left of the Socialists the only place to be is the PCF, especially now as the Party locally, if not nationally, accepts organised fractions amongst it midst.
    The PCF locally is confused, it is not sure of its future, there is no national leadership and the local leadership is deeply divided. It is not a left right divide, Trots, for want of a better description of revolutionaries, are on all sides. Should the Party continue to exists, should we dissolve into a wider left party- who would join after the Presidential debacle? Should we throw aside the traditional alliances with the Socialists, and lose most of our elected members in the process, who are also our financial base- PCF elected members give most of their salaries to the Party and make up about 70% of the 5 million euros of the Party’s income.
    End result- who would we unite with, and what would be the point? Clearly we need to break out of the impasse we are stuck in- we have huge successes like the 500,000 people who turn up at the Fete de l’huma. 3 million unique visitors a month to l’huma website, a daily newspaper, a handful of regional newspapers and some thematic/sectoral publications- and we are trusted at a local level to deliver results to villages, towns, cities and in the CGT, our community activism and staffing of single issue campaigns keeps the left alive but yet when it comes to national platforms we are sadly lacking. A simple rebranding won’t hack it, a merger with the LCR-so we get a bunch of middle class ‘here today gone tomorrow’ students a hand full of Trot vets who make their name out of not being us, at the end of the day will it make a revolutionary party?- sadly I don’t think so.
    Politically, as in paper policy the party has embraced the women’s movement, anti-racism, environmentalism, lbgt politics, base level democracy- in practise of course we remain white upper working class in orientation and in practise with all the racism, sexism, homophobia, elitism, anti-intellectual that involves.
    On national scale here would be my estimates
    Claimed party membership- LCR , 4.500, LO around 4,000 Greens, around 8,000., PCF, 100,000- In reality my guess would be around 80,000 card carriers, and around 35,000 activists- although how many are Party activists as opposed to CGT activists who attend Party meetings out of an old sense of loyalty I wouldn’t guess at. I would estimate an average age in the 60’s, around 25% black, mainly Maghrebian cultural roots, 80-90% working class- we have alienated most of the middle classes in the last 40 years, although the middle class still are over weighted in leadership positions- not necessarily the departmental and regional secretaries but definitely their strong influencers. Still very strong in the CGT, particularly the public sector and nationalised industries- rail, EDF/Gaz de France, education. Leading in the peace, anti-racist, anti-GMO associations, strong presence in ATTAC, nowhere in the green/environmental debate- its pretty right wing here.

    Like

  4. Can I ask Liam what he thinks about this new French Turn? I have been more inclined towards LO previously, but think the new orientation of LCR quite positive. As for Andy Newman’s criticisms, they do not surprise me in the least. The PCF is a Stalinist organisation. Once upon a time, it held the allegiance of significant sections of the working class, in much the same way that the Labour Party did. However, Lenin insisted on helping the Labour Party into office in order to shatter the illusions of workers in this bourgeois workers’ party. He called on revolutionaries to suspport it like the rope suppprts the hanged man. In precisely the same way, the French CP climbed into office alongside Mitterand, and exposed itself before workers who held great hopes for it. Rosa Luxemburg explained better than anyone else why socialists cannot enter into coalitions with non-socialist organisations, nor use a minority government status to justify working within the existing capitalist state to run capitalism better than the open parties of capitalism. The new left-wing electoral alliances in Scotland, England and Wales, Germany, France and elsewhere have in general ducked the question of the aim of these electoral alliances. Care to comment?

    Like

  5. Paul – it’s not clear to me how the LCR intends to retain its own distinctive body (or bodies) of ideas. As for the rest I’m not likely to have time to comment until tomorrow.

    Like

  6. Hi Liam,

    I think the opening “last January’ will suggest a reference to January 2007, but of course it’s actually a reference to this January. I have opened the article on IV with .In. rather than ‘Last’.

    Like

  7. Andy/Paul,

    The LCR has fought very hard for unity with the PCF. However, if the PCF continues to hold the position that any left alliance must support the PS, then unity will continue to break down at the first step. That is why Paul is mistaken to say that alliances in France have glossed over the question of government. The PCF has been clear that the alliance should support the PS; the LCR has the opposite view – and that is why where is no unity between the PCF and LCR on the electoral front.

    The PCF has to determine its own membership norms, but if Paul is referring to the reported request of comrades in Narbonne to join the PCF when he mentioned the ‘French turn’ then he should consider their motivation. The French turn was a project to link up with leftward moving forces in the mass parties. That is not what is going on here.

    The PCF is in serious decline, and workers have few illusions in it. How else could the Trotskyists be in their current position, where they obtain more votes than the PCF.

    As for the notion that we should vote for the PS and PCF – Paul should consider that this is a tactic and not a principle.

    Like

  8. Chris

    That isn’t really true.

    If you read Murray Smith’s description from May 2007:
    http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=474

    Murray is of course a member of the LCR:

    Chronologically, the first to pull out of the collectives, in September 2006, was the LCR majority (a substantial minority of the Ligue remained). The reason given was that there was insufficient clarity about participation or not in a future SP-dominated government. This was widely felt outside the LCR – and by the “unitary” minority within it – to be an excuse to get out and stand Olivier Besancenot as an LCR candidate.

    Very few of the many articles and documents dealing with the movement of the collectives and the attempt at a unitary candidacy have been translated into English (3) and as far as I know none of the main documents of the collectives have. It seems useful to quote the passages concerning an SP-dominated government from a key document entitled “Ambition-Stratégie” adopted by a national meeting of the collectives in September 2006.

    “We will not be part of a government dominated by social-liberalism, which, by its composition and by its project, would not give itself the means of finally breaking with liberalism, would not respond to what people were waiting for. The Socialist Party, in particular, has adopted a programme which turns its back on a clear break with liberalism. It is out of the question, for us, to negotiate on this basis a contract of government whose action, letting people down once again, would lead ineluctably to the return of a harder Right”

    And further:

    “If we do not take part in the government, our group in Parliament will not take part in a majority made up to support this government, but will vote in favour of any legislative provisions going in the direction of the interests of the population. We will also use our parliamentary strength, along with all those who will take part in social mobilizations, to get a certain number of positive measures adopted or to get negative measures withdrawn; to translate our programme into law and reality. We reserve the right to judge and to discuss publicly how the government and its majority act in the course of the legislature”.

    In a document written in English to explain the point of view of the LCR majority (4), François Duval, a member of the Ligue’s Political Bureau, wrote:
    “There was a single issue about which we were not ready to make a compromise. Not an unlimited series of pretexts: just one simple and single issue that needed – and still needs – an answer, a clear answer, an answer without any ambiguity. As you have surely understood it, the question we raised from the beginning of the process has remained the same: the question of the relationship with the SP, related to government and Parliament. And the answer we wanted to hear was: no, an anti-liberal candidate will not be member of a government led by the SP. No anti-liberal candidates for general elections, if elected as MPs, will either belong to the same parliamentary majority or support a government led by the SP.
    We have not heard such an answer”.
    And later on: “it [the document] does not clearly state that it will be impossible to join a SP government, nor to support it in the framework of a common parliamentary majority with the really existing SP, its programme and its leadership”.

    I find it difficult to read the quotations from “Ambition-Stratégie” above and agree that “we have not heard such an answer” or that the document “does not clearly state”. No doubt the formulations could have been sharper, but they do not seem equivocal. That document was voted for by a broad arc of forces including the Communist Party, which certainly had reservations about it and sought to leave itself a way out. So it is true that as Duval says, “the leaders of the French CP have a double-faced speech”. But the formulation of the document represented the feeling of the collectives on the question> As Duval also admits: “the main problem was not the average mood of activists from the anti-liberal collectives. A significant number of them more or less shared our point of view, even when they thought that we were exaggerating the importance of that issue. The main problem was ¬ and still remains ¬ the political approach of the CP”. In fact, the LCR (and it should have known this) was never going to get a cast-iron guarantee that the CP would never, ever, under any circumstances go into government with the SP. Whether, after the damage participation in government in 1997-2002 did the party, it was actually likely that they would repeat the experience this time is another question. And one which is likely to remain academic, short of a victory of the Left in the legislative elections that would be little short of miraculous. In any case, it is far from evident that on the basis of what was adopted in September, the LCR could not have stayed in and combated the CP, as many independents wanted it to do.

    François Duval is a memeber of the majority faction of the LCR that totally doesn’t understand the lessons of Germany, where left unity would have been impossible on the basis of a priori ruling out participation with those who might want a coalition.

    What the LCR majority do time and time again is raise the prospect of unity but then place pre-conditions that mean that they only leave open the prospect of unity with their own periphery.

    Like

  9. Hi Andy,

    While I have the greatest respect for Murray, his article is a polemical one critical of the LCR’s viewpoint, and one that collapses a number of points together.

    As you suggest, the debate in France is similar to that in Germany. The Fourth Internationalists in those countries oppose left alliances that go into coalition with the social democrats.

    Murray quotes documents that outline the French alliance’s earlier clear opposition to coalition. That clarity was not maintained. We can all agree that, from the documents, it was hard to see a positive statement of intent for coalition. However, one cannot doubt that the view of the CP (and your own view) is that coalition was desirable under the right conditions.

    Murray, of course, is not an active member of the LCR. He has lived and worked outside the country for quite some time now. I think there’s a good reason why national tactics need to be agreed on a national level, and cannot be dictated from the outside – the reality is lived city by city, and is often not reflected in documents. In particular, since the PCF wanted to negotiate with the PS and to avoid a break with its friends in the LCR it had no reason to make a clear statement for coalition. However it’s own refusal to rule it out, its subsequent stance in the elections and your own support for including coalition as an option should also be taken into account.

    Also, I do think you need to re-think the idea that only the LCR’s immediate periphery can be united if we oppose coalition with the social democrats. The French Trotskyists won one and a half million votes (out of, what 30 million?) in the presidential elections because of their clear stance against the neo-liberal parties. Coalition with the PS would weaken their appeal, and not strengthen it.

    Finally, can I just add a note of appreciation for the comradely manner in which you discuss and your general approach? Every modest gain for civil and straightforward discussion on the left should be celebrated.

    Chris.

    Like

  10. Andy,

    I can be a little crisper on this.

    In my original comment I said that ‘if the PCF continues to hold the position that any left alliance must support the PS, then unity will continue to break down at the first step.’

    The leaders of the PCF have a strategic intent to get the PS into power, and to use the leverage of the left to get themselves into the cabinet. They want to mobilise the maximum unity on the left, but they will use that as negotiating leverage with the PS to get their knees under the table.

    City by city, some members of the PCF take a different stance. People join the PCF for good reasons, not bad ones, by and large. However, our strategic orientation is different. We do not wish to see left alliances built as negotiating chips to trade with the PS or SPD. We want to build politically anti-capitalist alliances which will develop local activity and national opposition to the neo-liberal social democrats. The record of the PCF leadership, including its time in Mitterand’s government, is the reason why the PCF is in such sharp and avoidable decline.

    We take no pleasure in the decline of the PCF. The Ligue emerged from the PCF; our tendency was in the party and the young communists for decades – until 1968. The decline of the PCF has been partly avoidable, and a clearer stance against the PS would have preserved it better. The LCR is, to a large degree, filling the space from which the PCF has withdrawn.

    Chris.

    Like

  11. Chris

    I am not si sure that the issue of colaitions can be so easily dismissed.

    Had the politics you describe prevailed in Germany, there would be no Die Linke.

    My fiends in PRC tell me that there was considerable pressure from both voters and members for rifondazione to enter L’Unione coalition to get rid of Burlesque-oni.

    The left in Plaid has supported the One Wales agreement with Labour, because of some small but real gains.

    It is a difficult terrain to negotiate, but i find it inposssible to see how a broad left party can be built that a priori dismisses the idea of coalition.

    Like

  12. Hi Andy,

    Perhaps a little short-cut here is to reflect on the Comintern discussion on workers’ governments. Clearly, there’s no timeless objection to coalitions between workers’ parties. However, the option in Italy, France and Germany has been to make a coalition with a neo-liberal party. Were there any prospect of a coalition following a line of march that reflected the objective interests of working people, then we would have pause for thought.

    In Germany, it would be hard to build an effective movement against the military adventure in Afghanistan if Die Linke was in the government. We all stand in solidarity with ver.di’s struggle against the Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe but -in so far as the BVB is under the control of the SPD and Die Linke coalition – some of the best activists in Berlin will be looking for leadership to the left of the city’s ‘management’.

    Coalitions are local and tactical choices, with careful consideration involved. However, when the potential coalition its between a class-struggle party and a neo-liberal one then we have to continue to argue for the political independence of the working class and its allies.

    Like

  13. Well as Andy posted my comment from Socialist Unity to this blog I better respond.

    The first point is on the great LCR vote in the Presidentials, and conversely the terrible vote Marie-George Buffet got for us. It really centres around the candidate, Olivier is a supreme media performer, M-G Buffet, even when she gets onto the telly is frankly terrible, if you look at voting habits over the past 20 years is that Olivier is very good at winning young, middle class voters but his inroads into the working class vote, outside of traditional PCF voters is poor. The PCF is loosing its working class vote to the LCR at presidential and unable to pick up any new voters at all.

    However the Presidential is just one vote, if the LCR vote was truly a reflection of the penetration of its politics into French society then it would be reasonable to expect that they would have similar % at local, departmental and regional elections.

    This sadly is not the case, the PCF is going into this weeks elections with just 50,000 candidates for local and departmental positions- we have a hell of a lot of elected politicians here in France. A further 9,000 or so candidates are supported by the PCF. (As an aside it is slightly unreal how many elected politicians we have, in my own village of 59 voters we have 10 councillors).

    The PCF is defending 734 mayors, 242 Departmental councillors and control of two departments- Val-de-Marne and Seine-Saint-Denis. This year is one of our hardest test yet, not because we are in alliance with the PS but in many cases because we are standing against PS candidate in our key constituencies- even La Cournueve, the town that hosts the Fete de L’Huma we have a strong challenge from the PS.

    I don’t have the figures nationally, so I can just tell you about what is going on locally.To make a few points about the link with the PS, PCF electoral strategy, and the LCR, LO, and PT are local levels.

    In the three big towns near me, you have three completely different stories. All are held by the right in various guises. In Carcassonne the centre left list is PS/PCF/PRG, which stands at 39% in the first round- there is a small diverse left list which will 1-2%, and the Greens are standing alone and will get around 3%. In the Departmental vote when the PCF stood alone against the PS we picked up 15% in the working class areas and 7% in the mixed areas of the town. The are no LCR candidates that I can see, and no LO or PT ones either.

    In Narbonne the PCF is standing a list with the Greens and Regionalists against the PS/Modem list, the PCF had every intention to stand with the PS but the fact they wanted to open their list to the centrist Modem and the fact that they refused 99% of our policies meant we decided to stand on a more radical platform. In terms of elected members this could cost us dearly. The LCR have not got it together to stand a list, nor have the 2 LO members and although the PT Presidential candidate lives just up the road neither have the PT.

    In Bezier there is PCF members in two lists, the majority PCF list is with the LCR, and the minority PCF list is with the PS/PRC.

    Sorry to go into minute details of the a French backwater but the point is threefold. Firstly there is no natural link anymore between the PCF and the PS. The PS is as likely nowadays to open their lists up to the right than the left, and see many PCF towns as prime targets.

    Secondly the PCF strategy is defined by local conditions and not by national dictate, the strategy of the PCF is sometimes determined by pure electional calculations, others times by political principals- often a mix of the two.

    And the third point is that having a high profile, and very good candidate, like Oliver B is no guarantee that you have either the infrastructure of pulling power on the ground. The LCR is in effect unable to organise any independent lists without the PCF’s help. This does not bode well for their new left party intiative.

    What the actual results will be I’ll let you know next week. We could get creamed in all of these towns, and probably will- the politics of the urban south is very heavily influenced by the fact that 1 million white Algerian settlers found they preferred living along this side of the Med and not further up North- their voting habits ensure that a large number of Languedoc and Provencial towns and cities are run by the right, while the countryside is various shades of pink and red.

    And will you stop with these pathetic Stalinist dismissals, its too simplistic and intellectually lazy The situation on the ground is much more complex, while there are many people who would probably fit the ‘tanky’ bill there are many people, like myself who politically are close to the LCR, and Green Leftists who are in the PCF because it is the only force on the ground that sides with the working class, for all its imperfections.

    For all the decline of the PCF since the war it is still worth while remembering that if Respect (In whatever guise), had 20% of the electoral success of the PCF you would be ecstatic.

    Like

  14. Hi Pete,

    Yes, Paul’s comment about Stalinism isn’t helpful, and not only because of the PCF’s evolution towards social democracy.

    But I do think you are skipping something over when you say that “if the LCR vote was truly a reflection of the penetration of its politics into French society then it would be reasonable to expect that they would have similar % at local, departmental and regional elections.”

    The LCR is a small organisation which suddenly has a very wide layer relating to it. It does not have the long-term orientation that the PCF has towards winning local positions. The PCF clearly deserve praise for the progressive accomplishments of its members, not only its representatives but also it militants – many of whom play a strong role in building community and solidarity on the left.

    There are weaknesses in both the LCR’s lack of that layer of representatives, but also in the PCF’s having them. It creates a certain political pressure in some places. One of these is the continuing love affair with the PS nationally, which is hard to break.

    Of course you’re right that the PCF is often not standing with the PS but, as you say, that is often because of the PS’s choice rather than the PCF’s.

    Furthermore, it would be mistaken to think that the rise of the LCR and the fall of the PCF reflects just personalities. There are real political differences, including the approach one takes towards the PS.

    Like

  15. Chris, agree totally with your points. The point that continues to amaze me, and also must frustrate the LCR, is why they can’t convert the superb national coverage and support they recieve during the Presidentials into a larger organisation on the ground.
    Is it something about their internal culture that puts people off, is it the general cultural resistance to joining a party, even though you agree with its principals- a fate that all parties suffer from not just in France, or is it like me that while I am closer to the politics of the LCR than the PCF I see it as more politically effective to be a small fish in a larger pond than a large fish in a small pond?

    Like

  16. Pete,

    I think it’s nothing special about the LCR. It’s much easier to join an organisation like the PCF where the levels of activity and democratic input of members is more uneven, and where the leadership contains the anxieties of the members more consciously, than a group like the LCR which stresses participation in decision-making and an environment of, shall we say, creative tension…

    The daily experience of being in the PCF in many places is, frankly, much more pleasant. The happy, jovial and attractive cooking co-operative who did the catering at the Fourth International’s youth camp was a group of PCF supporters. In the LCR, the same people would be organising a self-defence class or something similarly militant.

    Like

  17. Of course in some places the PCF stinks, but so what.

    However, the LCR faces similar issues to the British SWP and other activist groups – all the way back to the Second International – which is how to balance growth and political life. The SWP super-centralised most thinking, but decentralized most action, and that produced the same dynamic towards bureaucracy and revolving-door activism we’ve seen in other organisations.

    Like

  18. Chris,
    It’s certainly true to you get to eat better in the PCF, every major political internal meeting here ends with the bottles of pastis and olives, and often with a big sit down meal. In the CPGB I thought I was more a jumble sale organiser than a militant, in the PCF more a waiter!

    Its a lot more pleasant a culture than down the local pub after the meeting culture in the UK.
    That sort of culture has its good points in terms of maintaining strong bonds between militants, but it also servers to temper the real debate that is running under the surface. Its hard to have a good row about the future of the Party when you have a duck leg in one hand and a glass of red wine in the other.

    On a more serious note the Youth Camp point is a good one, LCR militants and PCF militants often work hand in hand on many issues, often with the LCR doing some of the running on the politics and the PCF providing much of the logistical infrastructure. The No campaign was a classic of this- in Montpellier the PCF organised a rally of 5,000 people with OB, M-G B, Fabius, and the MP from the Landes whos’ name always escapes me, it was the PCF who paid for the theatre, organised and paid for the buses, designed and produced, and distributed the posters and I would estimate got around 4,500 of the audience, however the most appreciated and by far the most political speech, by far was OB’s not M-G B.

    The PCF links with the PS I think now hang on a thread, sure we work with the PS on many left slates for regions, and support minority PS councils and departments. However the PS as they move even further to the right see their future in working to ‘recapture’ the centre thus we see more and more alliances with the Modem emerging. They also now believe that they should aim to win the remaining PCF elected positions themselves. I have a strong feeling that in the next Assembly elections the PS will push aside the ‘reserved’ constituency agreements and finally break the PS/PCF accords.

    Frankly I welcome this, but I agree I am in a minority within the Party. The end of an obsession with retaining a group in the Assembly and in the European Parliament and a concentration back on industrial and local issues will wash away many of the cobwebs that restrict so much of our activity- it will also do away with many of the ‘dinosaurs’ that control so much of party debate by virtue of ‘importance’ of their elected positions.

    As an aside I was once, at the age of 17, a member of the SWP for a very brief moment before I rejoined the CPGB. The internal Party culture was exactly as you described, the line came down from London- complete with the relevant hand gestures, North London phrases, and even dress code, and local comrades saw their roles as conveyor belts to get the arguments across. There was no reflection on the actual position the Party was taken, just intense pressure to get each and every comrade to do more to spread the line, and to party build.

    The LCR seem to be almost exactly the opposite, all the reflection in on internal issues, debates that even informed observers find a bit to akin to angles on needles. An acquaintance of mine, a young teacher told me about her experience of trying to join- the LCR comrade who she talked to was much more interested in where she stood on internal party debates than whether she agreed with the stated position of the League and whether she would be a good Party militant. In the end she decided not to bother and joined the PCF where she has rapidly developed into head of the local teaching union and is on the Federation political committee and is a mainstay of the Narbonne PCF- despite, or maybe because of, the fact she is a firm supporter of the 4th International.

    Like

  19. As a member of the SWP for 18 years I do not recognise the charicature you portray of the SWP. Perhaps that is because you were in it only briefly and rejoined the CPGB.
    I do remember the CPGB having many of the attributes you attribute to the SWP so perhaps you’ve got us mixed up?

    Like

  20. Ray,
    You could well be right, my experience of the SWP was limited to 5 months as a naïve inexperienced 17 year old in York so it’s hardly a basis for a definitive analysis of internal Party culture.

    The only experience I had had before of revolutionary Parties was as someone close to the SACP in Southern Africa were the emphasis was nearly 90% on activity in supporting wider movements and only 10% on Party, education and discussion. Whereas my experience of the SWP was it was 90% about Party building and only 10% about any active engagement with any outside body, and then the emphasis was on Party building and not genuine support- the only ‘critically support line’.

    But as you rightfully point out 5 months is hardly sufficient to draw a genuine conclusion.

    What I can say about joining the CPGB at that time, as it spiralled ever closer to liquidising itself, was that all sense of internal party cohesion had disintegrated. So tied up in were most ‘leading’ comrades in internal fights that any sense of national or even regional leadership was non existent, and the whole party machine was ineffective, any political or industrial effectiveness at that time, 1985- 1990 was down more to individuals rather than any coherent party line, and of course to the wider impact of Marxism Today- which while intellectually interesting was more to Today programme than Marxist.

    I am sure back in the 60s and 70s what you describe on internal CPGB culture is true- but then I wasn’t born so I can’t comment.

    Like

  21. While I don’t discount your experience of the SWP it does differ substantaily from mine. When I joined in London in the late 80’s I found branch meetings a lively place to debate many national and international political issues at branch meetings. It was a welcome relief from the proceedural meetings I had attended at the local Labour Party.
    Jumping forward to the present day the branch I’m in has had meetings in the last couple of months on Pakistan, nuclear energy, the US presidential campaign, crisis in Kenya, the banking crisis and India/China and capitalism. Although I haven’t been to every meeting the ones I went to had over 20 people in attendance and the discussion was interesting and lively.
    I’ve no way of assessing the rest of the country but having been in a number of branches in London over the years and for a short time in Manchester I’ve not had the same expereince as you.

    Like

  22. Modest but not bad results for the LCR in the first tour of the municipal elections
    http://www.lemonde.fr/municipales-cantonales/article/2008/03/10/percee-inattendue-de-la-lcr-dans-des-villes-moyennes_1020744_987706.html#ens_id=996336

    Very strong resistance by the PCF against the Socialists, we lost one town in St Denis but gained Dieppe and Verizon and are head of the list going into the second round in Nimes and La Havre, Montluçon and Firminy. http://www.lemonde.fr/municipales-cantonales/article/2008/03/10/le-pcf-sort-conforte-des-primaires-provoquees-par-le-ps_1020735_987706.html#ens_id=996336

    However on the whole the right vote has not collapsed as predicted, Toulouse and Marseille showed strong conservatism- the PS/PCF list may still carry Marseille in the second tour but it is finger nail stuff.

    Like

  23. An early statement from the LCR is here:
    http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1444

    The French original says 14 elected: my count makes it 16.

    Like

  24. Here it is broken down by department
    http://www.lcr-rouge.org/spip.php?rubrique116#candidats

    – with being in the ballotage process in Foix this should rise from the 16 to over 20, and they may pick ups ome more in the second round depending if they enter the lists of the Left.

    Not so bad, small compared to the 20,000 or so the PCF will reel in, but a good showing.

    On a cheeky note it will be interesting to see if the LCR enter the PS/PCF/Modem list in Perpignan- its a bit of cleft stick for them- not to call for a vote for the Left after years of right wing control will be difficult- but to slag of the PCF for entering lists with the PS it will be virually impossible for them to enter a list that includes not only the PS but the Modem- of the woes of electoral politics. Mind you there is always that great get out which they have used before- calling for a vote against the right but not actually coming out and saying this means a vote for the centre Left.

    Like

  25. http://www.lemonde.fr/web/video/0,47-0@2-987706,54-1020659@51-1020636,0.html
    If you speak French here is Olivier saying that the LCR nationally will not call on the LCR list to call for a vote for the united left lists in the second tour- but at the same time it is up for each list to make its own mind up who they call their voters to support. He also didn’t mention if the LCR lists will merge with any of the other Left forces to make an LCR presence in the United Left lists.
    Its not a an eay choice to make- we communists should know we have got it wrong so many times!

    Like

Leave a reply to Pete Sheild Cancel reply

Trending