The Brooklyn Rail

Someone who wants an accurate description of the left-socialist current in French politics represented by La France insoumise (LFI), can find it in David Todd’s article in a recent issue of the London Review of Books. But outside of the political field proper, it’s difficult to know how much real influence this party has in society, and even what its electoral strength is nowadays. (We will see soon, however.) For sure, it is popular in the working-class suburbs of the big cities, especially among the population which has connections with immigrants—but not only there. It is also popular among some sectors of students. It does not seem to have a strong militant presence in social life. It is also not organized in workplaces, where the old unions have gained more adherents as they have lost most of their bureaucratic rigidity. The old Stalinist General Confederation of Labor (CGT) is now open to all sorts of anti-capitalist individuals and groups and even has anarchists in its ranks. This is true at the lower levels, at any rate, since the top apparatus is still connected somehow with the Communist Party (though not as closely as before, given the weakness of this party). Sophie Binet, the young woman who currently leads the CGT, is closer to left-socialist ideas. This development has given them a new capacity for mobilization.

There is also a small revival of a hybrid form of Leninist activity among the student youth—hybrid in that the new groups are less rigid than the Trotskyist ones of the past; they mix avant-garde ideas with conceptions of rank-and-file democracy. They express the need to act, attempting to face the question of organization according to the old party principle. Some of these groups are active in high schools and some universities, and also in some workplaces, such as railways and transportation. They remain isolated as groups of activists. Eventually, in the electoral game, all of them will probably merge with LFI when election time comes.

For the moment, the social crisis has not led to the development of any form of social movement. Instead, the social crisis—people’s hate for the Macron government—has led to a political crisis inside the parliamentary institution. This political crisis is still developing, and it’s difficult to see what forms it will take. An important development was the recent (October 14) government decision to suspend the “reform” of the pension system adopted last year, which essentially changed the retirement age from sixty-two to sixty-four years and increased the amount of working time required to have the right to a full pension. This “reform,” an essential element of the continuous destruction of the French welfare state by the liberal political currents in power (including several rightist governments but also a Socialist government), provoked strong social opposition, with strikes and demonstrations. This movement was defeated and the “reform” was adopted. But the opposition to the “reform” was so strong that the question stayed open and became the central point of opposition between the two sides of the political field. After all the other measures taken to destroy the welfare state, the “pension reform” has come to represent a central point in the opposition to the liberal capitalistic measures which are the core of the present social crisis: a “reform” rejected by a large part of the working-class population, a hated symbol of the political class. One should also underline that the social defeat in France encouraged other ruling classes in Europe to pass similar “reforms,” also provoking strong opposition. This is the case, for example, in Belgium, where on October 14 a general strike and huge demonstrations opposed a new pension regime, changing the age of retirement from sixty-five to sixty-seven.

It’s important to understand that the social opposition to “pension reform” goes deeper than traditional political divisions. This opposition is shared by the working- and lower middle-class sectors which are part of the electoral base of the political extreme right, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally [Rassemblement national] (RN). This party, which now has the largest group of representatives in the French parliament (thanks to the Macron “center,” which in the last election favored the RN candidates against the LFI candidates) is presented by the mainstream media and “political experts” as a “populist” tendency, together with the left-socialists of the LFI.

“Populism” is a vague and nearly meaningless concept. In fact, what is real is the fact that the economic and social crisis—the social consequences of the liberal measures taken, the destruction of the old welfare state, the growing gap between wealth and poverty in society—has created a strong polarization of political life. What is called “populism” is the political currents which express the failure of the promises of liberalism. The so-called “center,” which defended these liberal measures as a “modernization” of society, covers the old right, the Macron group, and large sectors of the Socialist Party. Till today, their goal remains to perpetuate the liberal policies and, first of all, to protect the wealthy sectors of the French bourgeoisie, reducing their taxes and helping them to grab an ever larger part of social revenue. In this polarization, LFI has a more comfortable position and its political goals are more coherent. The RN group has a more ambiguous position. Its lower-class base is also opposed to the destruction of the welfare state. But at the same time the growing support for this party on the part of the French big bourgeoisie and sectors of the capitalist class means increased austerity and destruction of the welfare state. Two essential elements separate the voters of LFI from those of the RN: the latter’s racist values and its position on the international crisis. While LFI is strongly anti-racist and has taken a clear stand against the genocide in Gaza and for a negotiation between Ukraine and Russia to end the terrible war, the RN (which originated in a pro-Nazi, racist, and antisemitic party true to the French colonialist tradition) is now a strong supporter of the fascist Zionists. On the war in Ukraine, the RN is soft on criticizing Russia even if it also talks about ending the war. Second, and also important, the RN economic program is an ultraliberal one, proposing an even worse destruction of the welfare state—close to the Trump and Milei projects—while the LFI program is an anti-liberal, Keynesian one. This radical difference is largely not noted by the press and most of the RN’s voters are probably not aware of it. But both political extreme sides favor the fall of Macron and a new parliament, since they both think that they will win the majority in the next elections. Indeed, anything is possible. The “center” and what is left of the old social-democratic Socialist Party want, for the moment, to avoid elections, in which they will suffer heavy losses. While the political crisis develops, the economic situation deteriorates, and the social conditions of life worsen for the majority of society: the working people.

All this explains why the government’s decision to suspend the adopted “reform” of the pension system was presented by the Socialist Party as a “huge victory” justifying their decision to support the government for the moment and avoid elections. But, as a CGT union leader said, “If a measure is unfair it should not be suspended, but revoked.” While it’s true that the decision represented a political defeat for the Macron gang, it quickly became clear that what was presented as a concession was in fact a political maneuver—a cover for an austerity program. The suspension, till the 2027 presidential election, only means that for two years, members of two successive generations can apply for pensions under the old system, after which the famous “reform” will come into force. Indeed, about 3.5 million people would benefit. But in exchange, this measure would be financed by a huge cut in the welfare state, a reduction of coverage of medical costs and aid for people with serious illnesses, reductions of various kinds of aid to children and old people, cuts in housing subsidies for poor people and students, and cuts to public education and the health system, which everyone knows from experience its already broken. In fact, what is proposed is a terrible austerity program, probably the worst since the last war, as the price for two years of suspension of the “reform.” Even those who would benefit from the measure for those two years would lose much more under these austerity policies. It will be interesting to see how the opportunistic Socialist Party, which has supported the suspension, will survive this bad deal—this proposed “Frankenstein Budget,” as it’s now called.

People are increasingly disgusted with politics and depressed by the situation. There is a growing feeling that the ruling class is unable to deal with the economic crisis. The old idea of the “general interest,” the foundation of representative democracy, has lost its force. In the particular case of French society, marked by the historical principle of equality, this disgust is also reinforced by recent political corruption cases, with former president Nicolas Sarkozy sent to prison for the financing of his campaign by the former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. To the fetish of the national debt—something that nobody understands except that it means that the rich pay less taxes for the functioning of the state—is now added the “Frankenstein Budget.” So far, the consequences of this situation are passivity and immobility, but also a growing rage. 

In Europe generally, the horror of Gaza has become central. It has become a sort of symbol: capitalism’s present-day face, the future of this society. Support for Palestine became much more than a simple nationalist demand for a state or a flag. It’s a stand against capitalism as a system of horror and destruction. The Ukraine war is more complicated: this is a war between two armies and two ruling classes, two blocs—not a genocide wreaked by one country on a population. The Ukraine war is increasingly utilized by the ruling classes in Europe, and in Russia too, as a justification for war and war economy—which, as we know, is the only way the capitalist class has to keep the economy going. War propaganda became huge over the last year or two, via radios, newspapers, TV, and official speeches. But European society is not ready for war—and war against Russia to boot! But fear is growing in society; people don’t know how to react to this danger. For the moment only Russian and Ukrainian youth are dying. Things will change dramatically if and when European youth are obliged to go to war. The Trump administration manipulated things well and left Europe facing the Russians. And now supporting Ukraine means buying American arms at the price of reducing the welfare state. The “social question” has entered the debate, and support for the war has become a class question. Europe itself is divided, and there is a possibility that this situation will break up the European Union, which is slowly disintegrating anyway. This would also be a good development for US capitalism. There is a real feeling that we are living through a very difficult and dangerous turning point, with crucial choices ahead. 

The political crisis in France is also marked by this general situation. The political crisis is not having an effect on economics, as journalists say day after day. It’s the other way around: it’s the economic crisis which is at the root of the political crisis. The Macron “center” wishes to be the savior of the capitalist class, and—since they do not have any other economic orientation but liberalism—to give a bigger share of the wealth to the capitalists and to progressively impoverish the working class. But, as recent developments show, they are unable to achieve this, and there is a strong social opposition to this choice. This was at the center of the demonstrations and strikes this past September. The first mobilizations were very promising: lots of young people were present in the streets and occupied schools, and some strikes took place (mostly in the public sector, with the private sector being paralyzed by layoffs and fear). These mobilizations were organized through social networks, with parties and unions joining the movement. But the following days of mobilization were more of a failure, with only half as many people involved as in the first mobilizations. People know that these demos are useless; one joins them because it’s a way to say NO and a way to feel free in the streets. That’s all, but it’s already a lot these days. What seemed new in the recent demonstrations was the feeling that people are ready to face the situation they are in, having turned the page of the last big defeat—the struggle against the pension reform. There was a renewed sense of the need to struggle and to oppose the capitalist class and the politicians—a sense of dignity. People were happy to be in the streets.

Meanwhile, the political crisis goes on. Only the left socialists of the LFI support old Keynesian demands, talking about taxing the rich and the capitalist class—reformist measures, to be sure, but ones which seem impossible to impose in today’s situation without a new class balance of power. Macron is getting increasingly tied to the extreme right. As in the 1930s, the so-called “center” is opening the door to the extreme right. An old, dangerous story.

Interestingly enough, the Gaza horror is now part of every social mobilization, here as in Italy, in Holland, and even in Spain, where the Socialist government tries to follow the tide with opportunistic measures. Enormous demos in Barcelona and Madrid have asked for a total stop of arms sold to Israel. As in Italy, the street demonstrations in Spain spread to workplaces and became connected with some strikes. Even in an insignificant country like Portugal, which has accepted US planes transporting arms to Israel by way of the Azores, there were quite large demonstrations against the Gaza genocide.

Everything is now mixed together: Gaza, war, horror, economic crisis, political crisis, the rise of a form of new fascism, and racist tendencies in the traditional political field. It is really a global crisis. In one way or another, people face the need to start to think about how to relate to this and to find new ways to oppose the ruling classes. And that’s also why the ruling classes insist on war propaganda, the “Russian danger” for Europe: to keep people paralyzed. A few days ago, Macron was quoted as saying that the French should not demonstrate and strike for better conditions with the Russians at the door. In a few years the whole picture has changed; the crisis of capitalism has become global and dominates the lives of millions of people. It’s a daily question now, present everywhere, for everybody, coming up in every talk or discussion.

Interesting times are also hard times. Also times when people will need to define themselves and take positions—“prendre parti,” as we say in French—not in the sense of choosing a political party, but in that of taking a class side on the capitalist game.

Paris, October 17