Round one of the French legislative elections is on Sunday. The French communists call for a vote to beat the right and the extreme right at the polls, but we also anticipate major social struggles whatever the composition of the next government. That is to say, even if the left-wing New Popular Front wins, after round two on 7 July. In the following article, we analyse in more detail the storm sweeping French political life, as well as the different possible scenarios and the resulting tasks for the labour movement.
[Originally published in French at marxiste.org]
Growing polarisation and centrist despair
What is obvious is the sudden acceleration of events. Every day brings its share of turning points, ruptures and denials. On the right, you have splits among the traditional centre-right Republicans; splits in Reconquest (founded by far-right Eric Zemmour); daily renunciations by Le Pen’s National Rally of its “social” program; and utter dislocation of Macron’s outgoing “presidential majority”. On the left, the developments are less spectacular, but no less significant.
Under the whiplash of Macron’s announcement of snap elections, the political landscape is being recomposed at a frantic pace. The period between the two rounds of the legislative elections will mark a new stage in this process; it will be an opportunity for unprecedented alliances and negotiations. Then there will be the second round, that great question mark that is giving the strategists of the bourgeoisie a headache. Whatever the result, it will probably not cure France’s political fever, at least not in the short term. It could even make things worse.
In theory, different scenarios are possible at the end of the second round: a majority dominated by the RN; a majority of the New Popular Front (NFP); a new “centrist” majority; or a completely paralysed National Assembly. This last scenario, which is not the least likely, would open up an unprecedented situation in the history of the Fifth Republic. The icing on the cake: the constitution does not allow new legislative elections to be organised before the summer of 2025. God only knows what “solution” to the impasse would be found, if any, but one thing is certain: the French political regime would not come out of it unscathed.
None of the other three scenarios guarantee lasting stabilisation of the situation. This is the consequence of the growing political polarisation that has been at work for many years. Prime Minister Gabriel Attal (among others) castigates “the extremists”, in which he places both the RN and the NFP. But when “the extremists” gather more than 65 percent of intended votes, compared to 20 percent for the Macronist (or post-Macronist) coalition, the Prime Minister’s desperate appeals for ‘moderation’ fall into void. For example, he will not convince various Republican candidates who, if they have not yet adopted Eric Ciotti's strategy of allying with National Rally, are preparing to do so the day after the first or second round. It remains to be seen to what extent they will follow their voters, who themselves pay little attention to the centrist platitudes of Gabriel Attal and others.
In fact, bourgeois propaganda against “the extremists” mainly targets the NFP. This is an attempt to win over the most “moderate” voters – and in particular those who voted for right-wing social democrat Raphaël Glucksmann on 9 June – by calling on them to think seriously about the threat that Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s La France Insoumise (LFI) represents to the very foundations of the human civilization. Hundreds of times a day, in the mainstream media, LFI leaders are accused of anti-semitism. Many of those who indulge in this slander declare in the tone of the noblest indignation: “How can the leaders of the Socialist Party (PS) condone such an abomination?”
The effect of this crude strategy will be very limited. Guided by its petty-bourgeois prejudices, the most right-wing fraction of Glucksmann's electorate returned to the Macronist fold the minute after the formation of the NFP. These characters did not need to be convinced by Attal's warnings and the latest bout of slander against LFI. This sector represents perhaps a third of the 3.4 million votes cast for Glucksmann in the European elections. Macron has already exhausted the support of this part of the electorate, there aren’t many more votes to win. Among voters who are preparing to vote for the NFP, anti-Macronism is a stronger force than anti-Mélenchonism. And for good reason: it is Macron, and not Mélenchon, who has ruled the country for seven years – to the detriment of the overwhelming majority of the population.
For the same reason, Macronist candidates will not be able to win many votes on their right. The outgoing “majority” is therefore marching towards a bitter and guaranteed defeat. But from then on, the formation of a majority “centrist” coalition, at the end of the second round, would require bringing together a sufficient number of LR deputies and, above all, deputies from the right wing around Macronist hangers-on from the NFP. This scenario seems to us to be the least likely of all, in particular because it implies finding many LR and NFP deputies willing to commit political suicide.
The Macronists are at an impasse from which they seem unable to escape. As for President Macron himself, he is more isolated, hated and powerless than ever. This is, generally speaking, the destiny of so-called “centrism” in these times of deep capitalist crisis and growing political polarisation.
The New Popular Front
The NFP is not a sufficiently radical left alternative, either in its program or in its political composition / Image: public domain
Can the NFP win the legislative elections and form the next government? It's possible, but not the most likely outcome. To understand the situation, we must link the electoral arithmetic to the class dynamics that, in the final analysis, form its basis.
The bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie will vote massively either for the RN, for the “centre”, or for the “independent” Republicans. However, this only represents a small minority of the electorate, the rest of which is made up of young people and workers. Who will they vote for? A large fraction of this electorate – particularly in its most exploited and oppressed layers – will vote for the RN or abstain. This is what all the opinion surveys indicate, and it is consistent with a dynamic that has been at work for a long time.
We know the fundamental reasons for this. Since 1981, various so-called left-wing governments have betrayed the aspirations of workers, youth and the poor. This has played a central role in the rise of the RN, which has constantly expanded its electorate not only amongst the petty bourgeoisie, but also in the working class. For decades, millions of workers have found that the alternation between the right and "the left" changed absolutely nothing about their situation. Under the right as under "the left", they were overwhelmed by unemployment, business closures, the destruction of public services, job insecurity and many other ills, while a tiny minority of the population accumulated ever more indecent fortunes.
The electoral dynamic of the RN can only be broken in two ways. The most painful is that the masses experience an RN government, whose reactionary, pro-capitalist policy would end up disappointing its working-class electorate. The most combative is the development of a massive left alternative that is radical enough to attract the support of millions of young people and workers who, in the absence of such an alternative, abstain or turn to the demagogic “radicalism” of the RN – which, moreover, benefits from the decisive advantage of never having been in power.
However, the NFP is not a sufficiently radical left alternative, either in its program or in its political composition. The inclusion of François Hollande is the symbol of this; it is also a first-rate gift to the RN. But beyond this grotesque case, the composition of the NFP as a whole, with its old discredited parties (PS, Communist Party (PCF) and the Greens), will have difficulty convincing the mass of young people and the poorest workers, the most exploited, the most crushed by the crisis of capitalism.
Responsibility for this situation falls, first of all, on the leaders of the PS, the PCF and the Greens, who have continued to shift to the right in recent decades. But the leaders of the FI are also responsible for the current electoral dynamic. They proved incapable of breaking with the right wing of reformism. The NFP is even more moderate than that of the previous left-wing coalition Nupes, which itself marked a step backwards compared to that of LFI in 2022.
We are not saying that an NFP victory is impossible. This election will be very polarised. Among the mass of young people and workers who abstain, there will be a burst of mobilisation for the benefit of the NFP – not on the basis of enthusiasm for this “left” coalition, but in opposition to the RN, which is now knocking on the gates of power. The scale of this surge will be one of the decisive elements of the electoral equation.
The NFP’s economic program
If the NFP comes to power, the French bourgeoisie will exert enormous pressure on the government to renounce its progressive measures / Image: Pierre Selim, Flickr
The collapse of the “centre” led to the collapse of the so-called “Republican Front against the RN”. It was replaced by a new “Republican Front” – against the NFP. It is obvious that the bourgeoisie prefers the idea of an RN government to an NFP government. In a recent interview with Le Figaro, the president of the bosses’ organisation Medef, Patrick Martin, declared: “the RN program is dangerous for the French economy, growth and employment; that of the New Popular Front is just as much, if not more so.” This “even more” gets to the heart of Patrick Martin’s thoughts. He knows that once the RN is in power, its real programme would be a blank cheque on Medef’s desk.
More explicitly than Patrick Martin, right-wing journalists and "experts" proclaim every day: "better the RN in power than the NFP!" They predict in particular an economic cataclysm if the NFP program is implemented. As we explained recently, "these cries of outrage are a prefiguration of the enormous pressures that the bourgeoisie would exert on a New Popular Front government, from the first day, to renounce the progressive measures of its official program and pursue a policy of austerity." The right wing of the NFP would be very sensitive to these pressures and quick to give in. This is why we call on the youth and the workers' movement to prepare for large-scale mobilisations to demand the immediate implementation and deepening of the progressive measures of the NFP programme, if it wins.
Faced with attacks on the viability of their economic program, the leaders of the NPF respond that the increase in the minimum wage and other measures favourable to the purchasing power of the masses will revive household consumption, which will stimulate business investment and production. They even put forward the prospect of 3 percent growth in the short term, a performance that the French economy has not achieved since 2000. Furthermore, they affirm that growth will increase tax revenues, which will provide a solid basis for public investments – to the benefit of everyone: workers, bosses and the middle classes.
Revolution rejects the propaganda of bourgeois economists who predict a complete collapse of the economy if the NFP program is implemented, because what these people basically mean is that only a policy of counter-reforms and impoverishment is economically viable. That being said, the NFP leaders are selling a Keynesian fairytale.
Once more: if the NFP comes to power, the French bourgeoisie will exert enormous pressure on the government to renounce its progressive measures that threaten the profits of the capitalists. These pressures will take different forms – including, if necessary, a campaign of unemployment blackmail and investment strikes. But this concerted offensive by the French bourgeoisie will be accompanied by a “spontaneous” reaction from the world financial markets. In the current context, that of a slump in the French economy, a slippage in its public accounts and a chronic deficit in its competitiveness, large private investors – and in particular those who finance the French public debt – will not be at all reassured by the perspectives put forward by the leaders of the NFP. Faced with the drain on profits, the markets will react with sabotage, paralysis, capital flight – and, last but not least, an increase in the interest rates on French debt.
We cannot anticipate either the form or the precise rhythm of this reaction. From the point of view of the bourgeoisie, the ideal would be to achieve a rapid and total capitulation of the government without the need to resort to large-scale economic pressure. This would also be the most likely scenario, given the composition of the NFP. Deep down, many candidates from its right wing have already capitulated: they do not take their official programme seriously. Others say vaguely that they will do “whatever is possible, depending on the circumstances.” But “the circumstances” are that the bourgeoisie will ensure that nothing is “possible” – apart from new counter-reforms and new drastic budget cuts.
How can we deprive the bourgeoisie of its means of pressure against an NFP government? By wresting from its hands these very means, that is to say: its control of the productive forces. The nationalisation of banks, large-scale industry and large-scale distribution – among others – would kill two birds with one stone. On the one hand, it would immediately deprive the bourgeoisie of its levers of economic pressure. On the other hand, it would lay the foundations for planned production under the democratic control of workers, which alone will make it possible to end poverty, unemployment and all the other scourges generated by capitalism in crisis. In short, to neutralise the bourgeoisie, it will be necessary to expropriate it, and to put socialist revolution on the agenda.
We are well aware of the fact that this is not at all the project of the leaders of the NFP. Its official program does not provide for a single nationalisation; and bows religiously before capitalist property. The French bourgeoisie is well aware of this and is not afraid of Faure, Roussel or even Mélenchon, but of the social forces behind the NFP. After years of austerity and counter-reforms, the bourgeoisie fears that an NFP victory will raise strong expectations among young people and workers, who could then mobilise massively to “help” – or rather, force – a government of the NFP to implement its program, and even to radicalise it.
There is a famous historical precedent in France. The electoral victory of the “Popular Front” in May 1936 provoked a powerful wave of indefinite strikes which, in the space of a few weeks, plunged the country into a revolutionary crisis. Fearing losing everything, big French employers had to make much greater concessions to workers than the (very moderate) measures planned in the electoral program of the Popular Front. We will not go into analysing the differences between the Popular Front of 1936 and the current New Popular Front here. If we evoke this chapter in the history of the class struggle in France, it is to indicate what the French bourgeoisie really fears, and why it is campaigning so violently against the NFP.
How to fight against the far right?
The possibility of an RN victory on 7 July arouses the anxiety and anger of millions of young people and workers / Image: Vox España, Wikimedia Commons
The possibility of an RN victory on 7 July arouses the anxiety and anger of millions of young people and workers. Le Pen, Bardella and their clique of demagogues are implacable enemies of the working class. If they come to power, we should expect an outbreak of reactionary and racist attacks of all kinds. Small fascist groups, in particular, might want to celebrate the event in their own way. The entire left and the trade union movement should anticipate this and prepare large “popular defence” mobilisations in neighbourhoods likely to be targeted on the evening of July 7 and the following days.
It would be criminal to minimise the danger posed by the RN. However, to effectively combat this threat, we must first understand its true nature. Fearmongering about the imminence of a “fascist” regime confuses people.
Let's take the example of a recent message sent by Sophie Binet from the CGT, to activists of this trade union confederation:
“It’s one minute to midnight because the fascists [with whom she identifies the “extreme right”] are at the gates of power.”
She continues:
“The CGT has always been very clear on far-right issues: we never put the extreme right back to back with any other political force. There is a difference in nature. This difference in nature is that while the extreme right often comes to power through the ballot box, it refuses to hand over power. This is what happened in Brazil and the United States, where the far right refused the results of the polls and tried to organise a putsch [referring to Bolsonaro and Trump]. This is what is happening in Italy, where Giorgia Meloni is in the process of reforming the Constitution to call into question the independence of the courts and the independence of trade union organisations, so as to be able to lock down democracy and be sure of being able to retain power. This is why we must put all our strength into preventing the far right from coming to power on July 7.”
The claim that there is a “difference in nature” between the RN and “any other political force” – including, therefore, Renaissance and LR – is to take the wrong path from the outset. The RN, LR and Renaissance have the same fundamental class character: they are bourgeois organisations, whose objective is to defend the interests of the ruling class. On this common basis, which opposes them all to the CGT, they certainly have differences and divergences, but these are very relative and changing, as Eric Ciotti has demonstrated.
Fascist organisations also defend capitalism. From this point of view they have the same fundamental class character as the RN, LR and Renaissance. The difference – which is certainly very important – between fascist organisations and other bourgeois political forces lies in the means they use to defend the interests of the ruling class. Fascism seeks the total destruction, by force, of all workers' organisations: parties, unions and associations, by mobilising the most rabid and reactionary elements of society, especially the petty-bourgeois and lumpenised layers as capitalism’s shock troops. Its victory resulted in the political atomisation of the working class.
Is this really what threatens us if the RN wins the legislative elections? Obviously not. If this were the case, the call to vote for the NFP would be a very derisory means of opposing it. Above all, it would be necessary to urgently form workers' militias, in all cities and all working-class neighbourhoods, in order to fight against fascist militias and their allies in the police force. If no one is proposing to take this path, it is precisely because the real threat today is not the victory of fascism, which supposes a completely different balance of forces between the classes. The real threat today is the victory of an arch-reactionary bourgeois party whose objective is to continue and amplify the reactionary policy that has been at work for many years, and to intensify the already very strong trend of nationalist and racist propaganda, and attacks on our democratic rights.
The central danger here is not that the RN will “refuse to give back power”, as Sophie Binet asserts, but rather that it will strive to apply its programme, that is to say, the programme of the French bourgeoisie, which needs to defend its profits, to brutally attack our living, working and studying conditions. Sophie Binet should tell us clearly what we will have to do, on the evening of 7 July and in the following days, to prepare a powerful mobilisation of youth and workers against the reactionary policy of a government led by the RN.
In her message to CGT activists, Sophie Binet calls on them to “mobilise and deploy actions”, to “maintain and amplify social pressure”, to “raise social demands in all companies” and to unionise a maximum number of workers. This is all well and good, but it's too vague. The leadership of the CGT must prepare today a concrete and precise action plan to combat a possible RN government. Instead of discussing how the far right “refuses to leave power”, the CGT must develop a battle plan to, as soon as possible, overthrow the far-right government that could emerge on July 7, and replace it with a workers' government.
In the current context, an RN government would be weak and fragile. From day one, it would be hated by decisive sections of youth and workers. Because of its pro-capitalist policy, it would be condemned to lose ground in the working-class electorate, but also in the poorest layers of the petty bourgeoisie. It is not possible to anticipate the pace of this process, but given the depth of the crisis, it could be quite rapid. A central element of the equation will be precisely the programme and strategy of the major organisations of the labour movement, starting with the most powerful of them: the CGT. The more the CGT has a clear and combative battle plan, the more it will be able to mobilise large layers of young people and workers, the faster the decomposition of the social base of the RN will be.
Let us specify that by “clear and combative battle plan”, we mean something other than a succession of “days of action”, on the basis of strictly defensive slogans. This union “strategy”, which failed against Sarkozy, Hollande and Macron, will not be more effective after 7 July. To defeat an RN government, it will be necessary to paralyse the country, and therefore systematically prepare a vast movement of renewable strikes, on the basis of an militant and radical social programme. Unfortunately, Sophie Binet currently swears by the losing strategy of “days of action”.
We come to the heart of the problem. Macron's relative ‘strength’ for seven years lay less in his popularity than in the passivity of the official leaders of the workers' movement. And now that the RN is on the verge of power, Sophie Binet does not present the shadow of the outline of an action plan.
The central problem facing the labour movement today is not the imminence of “fascism” but the passivity and moderation of the official leaders of the left and the trade union movement. This problem, which played a big role in the rise of the RN, is not new and will not be resolved overnight. But in this area too we must expect sudden accelerations. The internal polarisation in the CGT, which found very clear expression during its last Congress in April 2023, will increase in the months and years to come.
Likewise, the slump at the top of the reformist left, including LFI, will not prevent the process of political radicalisation from developing, particularly among the youth. The orientation of an increasing number of young people towards communism is the most important manifestation of this, from our point of view.
We responded by taking the decision to found the Revolutionary Communist Party (PCR). There is no more urgent task than the organisation, in a true communist party, of the most revolutionary elements of youth and workers. Through the ebbs and flows of the great struggles to come, the PCR will accumulate experience, forge hundreds, then thousands of revolutionary cadres, who will play a decisive role in the course of events. History has spared no other path to the final victory of our class, that is to say, to the overthrow of capitalism and the socialist transformation of society.