http://www.newsocialist.org/index.php?id=1809

*A new anticapitalist party in France: excitement, hope and obstacles*
By John Mullen

The beginning of 2009 will see the official launch of the New 
Anticapitalist Party in France, called for by the Ligue Communiste 
Révolutionnaire and its spokesman Olivier Besancenot. After the Scottish 
Socialist Party, Die Linke in Germany and Respect in Britain, it is 
another attempt, in a context of relative political radicalization, to 
build a large Left party mainly based not on managing capitalism but on 
supporting fightbacks. But the new party in France, the NPA, does not 
really resemble these other initiatives.

Struggle

First of all class struggle is at quite a high level in France. Since 
1995 regular mass strikes and movements have seen millions on the 
streets. They were sometimes victorious (like in 2000 when the Education 
Minister had to resign, in 2005 when the European treaty was rejected by 
a referendum, or in 2006 against the Youth Employment Contract) and 
sometimes not ( like in 2003 over the raising of the retirement age). 
But even when not victorious, movements were strong enough to frighten 
the governments, who have not been able to go nearly as far in attacking 
working conditions and salaries as has been possible in other European 
countries. Sometimes concessions have been won (like the thirty five 
hour week). The victory of Sarkozy at the presidential elections in 2007 
would turn the tide, the bosses hoped. Sarkozy aimed to be France's 
Thatcher.

And certainly Sarkozy has rushed through many serious attacks. Job cuts 
in the public services reached 23 000 in 2008, and 30 000 more are 
planned for 2009. Taxes for the rich have been reduced; more troops have 
been sent to Afghanistan; undocumented immigrants have been clamped down 
on; the police are getting harsher. But the fightbacks continue too. In 
December 2008, the Education minister, after a series of loud arrogant 
declarations about never backing down was forced by a school student 
movement to abandon his flagship High School "reforms". Local strikes by 
undocumented "illegal" immigrant workers in restaurants have recently 
won them papers. Railway workers, postal workers and teachers have had 
massive days of action, and television workers have been on strike 
against Sarkozy's attacks on media independence.

What is more, the generalized strike call for the 29th January 2009 will 
probably result in the biggest movement yet. These fightbacks have 
widespread sympathy among the population, in particular since Sarkozy's 
response to the financial crisis was to give billions of euros to the 
bankers.

But political organizations have recruited only a small fraction of the 
tens of thousands of new activists created by the movements, and the NPA 
hopes to go some way to changing this. The deep crisis of the large but 
greying Communist Party, whose leadership has recently decided to get 
closer to the Parti Socialiste (again) is unable to tap this potential.

NPA popularity is very encouraging. In the media, the pale pink politics 
of the mainstream parties leave Besancenot's speeches streets ahead 
whenever anything happens. Whether on strikes, privatization or Gaza, 
millions of people see Besancenot as the voice of radicalism. He has 
several times been voted "best opposition leader" to Sarkozy in polls. 
In the election year of 2007, 62% of the population "had a good opinion" 
of Besancenot.

The new party has 400 committees across the country preparing the 
launch. Committees exist in towns and in a large number of universities, 
workplaces and High Schools. The University I work in, which hasn't seen 
a political meeting in years now has an NPA committee! In the town of 
Montpellier, a day long regional meeting got 2000 people to it, a Paris 
meeting also got 2000, in Marseille there were 1500, and elsewhere 
numbers were excellent. National commissions on workplace politics, on 
ecology, on working class neighborhoods and so on have produced 
wide-ranging debates and proposals. Almost all the committees are active 
in the Gaza protests, in defending public services, and in the different 
strikes, especially against redundancies. Many have organized debates on 
the financial crisis, on Marxist ideas, or on international issues.

The trotskyist Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire is the only sizeable 
national group involved in the NPA, and it will be dissolving itself to 
merge with the new party. Whose fault it was that other national Left 
networks refused to jointly launch a new organization is still hotly 
debated.

Apart from the LCR, the party is made up of a couple of small 
revolutionary groups, thousands of individual trade unionists, single 
issue campaigners or newcomers to activism, and a number of local 
radical Left groups who are aware of the need for a more ambitious and 
dynamic political party, even if they may have reservations or 
criticisms. The NPA will certainly be much bigger and younger than the 
LCR was, and a real attempt is being made to work in a new way, to make 
sure there is space for all sorts, not just for overworked activists who 
go to six meetings a week.

Method

The formation of the new party has followed a rather unusual method. 
Programmatic documents and the statutes have been discussed at committee 
meetings across the country, amended, re-amended and will be voted on at 
the founding conference. It can be rather chaotic at times, but the 
advantage is that there has been a wide debate on the programme of the 
new party. Personally I think the debate is more important than the 
result, because the precise text voted at conference may not have that 
much effect on the party's activity. This is particularly the case since 
the LCR already had a strong federalist streak (each town deciding many 
things for itself) and this may well be amplified in the NPA. As one 
revolutionary once said "It's better to have a big stick than a picture 
of a machine gun" -- the precise detail of the programme is irrelevant 
if party members are not convinced they should move on it.

Debates

The Conference is likely to affirm the need for revolutionary change, 
but not to affirm any particular link to trotskyist or other analyses. 
The general tone is "a new kind of socialism for a new century". This 
leaves many debates still to be had, of course, since it is easier to 
get people to agree to try "something new" than to get them to agree on 
what specific analysis or strategy should be used. There are significant 
Left libertarian and radical Green currents, but also guevarist and 
syndicalist ideas.

The main debates which continue in the committees and in the national 
coordination now are about socialism and ecology (Should we ditch the 
term "socialism" and talk of "eco-socialism" instead? Are we opposed to 
economic growth?), about activity in the unions (Should we work within 
the big established union confederations or build up the smaller but 
more radical ones), and about the name of the party. There is no 
consensus about the name. A minority want the word "revolutionary" in 
the name while others (like me) consider that if the party is to be open 
only to revolutionaries, there was no point shutting down the LCR in the 
first place.

Debate continues also about the role of young people. The LCR has a 
tradition of separate organization for the young (the relatively 
unsuccessful JCR). In the NPA, it will no doubt be a little less 
separate, but there is nevertheless talk of separate committees, a 
separate national leadership, separate campaigns and a separate 
newspaper. One of the aims is to be sure younger activists feel at home, 
but I think there is too much separation, and a real danger of 
ghettoisation.

Islamophobia

There are two other important questions I want to mention. One is 
unfortunately causing not much debate at all, and that is the question 
of fighting islamophobia. This has always been a massive blind spot of 
the French radical Left, particularly striking when no significant force 
actively opposed the 2004 law banning Muslim girls wearing headscarves 
from going to state schools. No real progress seems to have been made 
since. Only one amendment proposed for the NPA conference mentions 
islamophobia, and it may well not pass. On the French Left, opposing 
islamophobia is in practice taboo and paranoid secularism is common. In 
a 2007 poll, 44% of the French population (but astonishingly 49% of far 
Left sympathizers!) felt islam was « negative for French identity », 
while recent extremist arson attacks against mosques provoke practically 
no comment from the radical Left. Nevertheless, the involvement of a 
number of NPA committees in serious work in poor immigrant neigbourhoods 
will keep bringing this question into focus, and a slow rethink is possible.

Alliances

The other debate, run at high temperature, is about the type of 
alliances which are possible or desirable for the new party: alliances 
in particular struggles, alliances in general political campaigns (like 
the highly successful united campaign against the European treaty in 
2005), and alliances at election times. This question is complicated by 
two factors. One is the French election system. Almost all elections 
take place over two rounds, so smaller parties can to some extent 
justify standing separately in the first round on their own specific 
politics, and then (sometimes) calling for a Left vote in the second 
round. However, money from the government, paid out for each vote won in 
an election once you have got over 5% (usually), is a major source of 
funds for Left parties, and this can push towards alliances. These two 
technical points have to be added in to the political disagreements 
about what alliances are useful.

A significant minority of the NPA believes that the party should be as 
wide as possible to be sure to include as many class fighters as 
possible, and if the NPA turns out to be quite narrow, then it should 
active seek out wider alliances. A somewhat bigger minority is more 
worried that broadening the party or being too willing to build 
alliances would compromise radical policies by getting too close to 
figures who have not really broken with the Socialist Party's approach 
of putting capitalism first and people second (or third if times are hard).

It is particularly hard for people outside the party to follow this 
debate, because it is often carried out in coded terms: no-one is going 
to declare "I am a purist and opposed to unity." Even the most sectarian 
are likely to say how much they would like united action but that it is 
sadly impossible etc.

My own view is that the main danger is that the NPA is not going to 
build wide enough alliances. Two recent events on the Left illustrate 
this. One is that a Left wing reformist, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, with a band 
of influential supporters, has left the Socialist Party to set up a new 
party claiming to follow the model of the German Die Linke (but a lot 
smaller). Melenchon defends public services, opposed the European 
treaty, demands a rise in the minimum wage. This could have been the 
chance for NPA activists to say "Here are some things we have in common 
-- let's build a mass united campaign on the theme 'The workers 
shouldn't pay for the crisis'". A vocal public demand for united action 
might not have worked, but it would have clarified in the minds of many 
hesitating people that the party which wants united action is the NPA. 
What happened was more the opposite -- leading members of the NPA fell 
over themselves rushing to emphasize all the (very real) differences 
between Mélenchon's politics and anticapitalist politics.

Similar things have been happening concerning the preparation of the 
European elections. Whether or not to run united radical Left slates in 
each region will be jointly decided by the regional NPAs and the 
national leadership, but some of the leading lights of the (soon to be 
ex-) LCR have been sounding very purist. One widely circulated article 
suggested it was only possible to run joint slates with groups who were 
campaigning against all immigration control and for the banning of all 
redundancies. Other leading figures have made declarations which boil 
down to "The NPA is the only radical Left wing organization in existence 
now."

But this statement is simply not true. Though the NPA is the strongest 
and the most attractive to young people, there is a wide radical and 
non-party Left which could be included in a political front to stop the 
workers paying for the crisis. The Parti de gauche may draw interesting 
people in, and there is another initiative, La Fédération, which is 
bringing together a series of Green and Red groups in an attempt at 
joint work. This last includes the organization (several hundred 
members) "Communists for Unity" who are on the way out of the Communist 
party, as well as some of the "antineoliberal collectives" who were very 
dynamic a year or two back. The idea of the Fédération is that it is not 
possible at present for a new broad party to flourish, but that a looser 
organization which permits dual membership could unite people in the way 
that the united campaign in 2005 against the European treaty did.

Nothing has been decided by the NPA on election slates yet. Other voices 
in the NPA (some from the LCR minority, some newcomers) are insisting 
that we should take the opportunity for a wide radical Left alliance in 
the euro elections in order to elect a few Euro MPs who can carry a 
radical voice onto the Europarliamentary stage. The NPA committee from 
Clermont Ferrand is proposing a motion to conference on this basis.

To sum up the general situation of the new party, the NPA will certainly 
be an exciting further move towards more openness and more young people, 
especially if the new newspaper which is planned is much popular in form 
and in style, and is sold actively. However, the NPA should be only a 
first step towards wider alliances, which should not demand of potential 
allies that they prove first that they are really really anticapitalist. 
There is a need for a clearer concentration on the way people's ideas 
change in struggle. If the anticapitalists don't draw into action and 
debate genuine class fighters who are not yet convinced revolution is 
possible, other forces will, and the radical Left alternative will be 
weaker for it.

What is needed are some clear partial victories on particular struggles 
which could both raise the confidence of workers and attract thousands 
more to the party which will have been central to supporting those 
struggles. If Sarkozy can be sharply pushed back, this could be an 
inspiration for the Left across Europe.

John Mullen is an NPA activist in the South West of France, writing in 
personal capacity. His blog is here <http://johnmullenagen.blogspot.com>
A list of local NPA blogs and websites is available if you read French 
here <http://www.lcr-rouge.org/spip.php?article1773>


-- 
Linda
*http://freedetainees.org <http://freedetainees.org/>
"If we shadows have offended, Think but this,
and all is mended, That you have but slumber'd
here While these visions did appear..."
- William Shakespeare
*


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"bangla-vision" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/bangla-vision?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to