Marxisme Aujourd’hui (Marxism Today) intends to contribute to the discussion that opened up after the warning shot that was the vote on May 29 in France. We wanted to place the event in the general context of the international situation and examine the problems raised.
The petty bourgeoisie, notably in the press, exerts its irony at the expense of the partisans of socialism. Scepticism, ruthless ambition, conservatism? It is sometimes the result of years of deception, or the sign of discouragement. It is all the more terrible that the media, oriented towards the oligarchs, actively attempts to discredit the movement of the masses, undermining their arguments. They censure with zeal any and all indications that demonstrate where the world is going.
Of course, we were not completely misled by the tulips, the oranges and the other fruits of US NGOs. We are conscious that, everywhere, under these colours, it is human rights, misery and the exploitation of the workers, that fills the streets and the squares with their angry supporters and their clamours for freedom.
That the agents of the CIA are behind them and are pulling the strings we have no doubt, but we know that the motor force behind the crowds of the former Soviet Bloc is the utter destitution and police oppression, linked with powerful social and political aspirations. It is this that explains their marching in the streets and cries from the squares of the waves of people that are a real tsunami of men and women.
Everything in the countries of the former USSR was started by the elderly, their pensions stolen and stripped of their slight privileges and by the young – notably the students and the workers who will be the leaders of the new world that they create and celebrate by their action. In certain countries, such as in Uzbekistan recently, the violence and the repression alone explains the violence of the masses and the rows of corpses.
In old Europe, there is not a Karimov capable of resorting, without hesitation, to vicious violence. In spite of the “All to the Left” launched by Müntefering, the leader of the SPD, the Social Democrats in Germany just suffered a terrible defeat in their electoral bastion of North Rhine Westphalia. The long-time leader of the party’s left, Oskar Lafontaine, has just broken with the SPD and, with two other groups, is openly preparing the ground for the creation of a new party that is truly left wing.
In Spain, a night of demonstrations against the lies of the government swept away the disciple and heir of Franco, José Maria Aznar and his Popular Party in just a few hours. In spite of the cries of victory on the part of the right everywhere, it was the high number of abstentions and only a handful of electors who voted “yes” in the European referendum. This was no victory!
Other electoral defeats, with millions of electoral abstentions, have swept Europe. Millions of voters deserted the cause of Tony Blair, while an expelled Labour Party member, adversary of Bush and opponent of the Iraq war, swept away a Blairite. In Italy as well, the recent elections saw the loss of millions of voters and this signals the end of Berlusconi.
Europe is also under the banner of the struggle for Human Rights, against repression and torture. In Africa, the struggle continues to prevent the economic pillage rife across many of the former European colonies.
This is the most important part of the world in this period. A Canadian professor in the United States, James D. Cockroft recently published an interesting report at a conference at the University of Guerro called “The work of Karl Marx in the 21st Century”. We owe him much in this part of the analysis.
First, a bit of contemporary history. This report begins with the failure of the April tour of Condoleezza Rice, who Chavez calls “the imperial lady”, where she tried to find the necessary support in Latin America “to put an end to the revolution in Cuba and in Venezuela”. This tour, which aimed at mobilizing the Latin American states for a quarrel between them and the White House, was a total failure.
The clear position of Brazil for the “clear respect of Cuban sovereignty”, the Chilean president’s invitation to Bush to temper his rhetoric on the subject of Venezuela, President Fox’s failure to stop the mayor of Mexico City from running in the presidential elections, are so many costly defeats for US policy and prestige.
And, as always during these last few weeks, there is the trouble caused by the Luis Posada Carriles affair, the terrorist whom the US refuses to extradite, something that all the South Americans demand.
In a few days, the streets and the squares will be swarming with people, the majority of them workers and youth. One after the other, the presidents bribed by Washington head up to the roof of their palace to escape by helicopter. In Mexico one million people took to the streets in a “march of silence” to defend the mayor. A few days later, La Paz was occupied by protesting workers from El Alto and the peasants of Altiplano accompanied by tens of thousands of others. Will we see the birth of the Bolivian Republic of Workers and Peasants with the neighbourhood committees as soviets? We are not far from it, and Mesa, the president himself is also thinking of a quick departure by helicopter.
And that is not all, in Brazil, in spite of the inevitable disappointment due to the policies of Lula, the people are for socialism and are playing an important role in the defence of Human Rights. The MST continues to mobilize the landless peasants and a good number of them will be given land between now and the end of Lula’s mandate.
James D. Cockroft believes that the Bush administration has already declared war on the Americas and the Caribbean. The people are already heading down the road of independence, in this case the second, economic independence.
After those in Cuba, the reforms in Venezuela have aroused the Latin American people and Bolivarianism with the seizure of untilled land and abandoned factories. They are committed to completing these tasks democratically, and to do this they have founded a powerful trade union organization.
On the economic front, the launching of * ALBA (the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas), pushed by Venezuela, is the first step towards the integration and unification of the countries of Latin America. We have seen the creation of links in the oil industry (Petrosur), and in telecommunications (Televisora del Sur) and we have witnessed the founding of a cartel of debtors to counteract the leeches of the World Bank. To all of these well-known initiatives, we must also add the Venezuelan-Cuban economic accords, the struggle of ideas against capitalism in all its forms, the merciless criticism of Stalinism and that which the empire calls “democracy”.
“Either capitalism crushes us, or we find another road demanded by world: socialism!” There is much truth in what Chavez said.
It is within this context that a very rich referendum campaign on the European Union constitution took place – rich in discussions, arguments, hope and anger. And last night, the verdict was given: clear, brutal, and without appeal. This morning, May 30, the editorial of the Swiss daily Le Temps begins with “The French have retaken the Bastille”.
The irony is evident, but is it not only to be able to better hide a profound disappointment and to express veiled terms, an objective truth: the general distress? In other words, the only important question is posed: “Is it possible to retake the initiative in the face of this mass mobilization, and how?”
The result of the referendum vote was a political earthquake. First because of this mass mobilization, which due to its momentum submerged and swept away all the obstacles designed precisely so this wouldn’t happen, then by its massive class character, and finally, by the mass of ruins left by the force of this protest. We cannot be mistaken on these three points, as the efforts made yesterday before 8 o’clock to deny their reality are disgusting. The avalanche, the torrent has descended on us. Let us try to see what was swept away. To start, let’s look at the summary made by the Italian newspaper La Stampa: “Jacques Chirac announced the dismissal of his prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, pretending not to understand that it is him the French wanted to dismiss.”
For Chirac and the other political elites of Europe, this vote was of the highest importance: to obtain the support of the people of the 25 countries of Europe in one solemn vote, and to give the force of law to the reactionary contents of this project. The task was to attempt to restore the “legitimacy” of the domination of the ruling class, their banks and their economic interests. Developed in the greatest secrecy, protected by the semblance of democratic virtue, presented as an incomparable compromise and an historic opportunity, it had to be adopted. For the workers and the youth it instituted the order of constraint and restriction, legalized by the anointment of democratic oil, and granted the guardians of capital more freedom for more profits.
In France, Chirac, needing to restore his credibility after the previous calamitous elections and the accumulated loss of credibility by his government, opted for a referendum on the EU constitution. This choice was backed up and supported by the statements and offers of service made by the leaders of the PS (Socialist Party), pressed to widen the base of their electoral clientele on “meaningful” and “interesting” topics before the election in 2007. The blow was all the more feasible since the support of the PS, winner of the preceding regional elections, offered Chirac, at least on paper, the assurance of a victory without danger, and at the same time a major division of the political representation of the workers and youth!
It was announced everywhere: the vote would be nothing but a formality, because with the support of the three main political parties, the support of the majority of the trade unions, the result seemed to be a given. In addition to the requisitioning of the methods and means of the administration of the state, coming to the rescue of the already announced victory, all the public opinion makers, practically the entire press, the television, all of the people this country count as “beautiful spirits”, all the experts (academics or not), all united, from Alexander Adler to Toni Negri, all across the “left-right divide”, fierce defenders of “this great, natural project”. Everyone behind Chirac, with him at the fore! The mass seemed to be over and the hunting of the unbelievers had opened up! This whole beautiful set-up taking charge of the future success of Chirac, himself the commander of the operation! What a triumphal ride to success it would be!
The awaited victory was ordered to make no compromises. When, in the history of this country, have we seen such a bludgeoning, which lasted until the very last moments of the campaign? The violence to which we were submitted has never attained such a degree of intensity. Until the very day before the vote, the editorial of Le Temps made the following remark in connection with this bombardment:
“Rarely, has the violence exercised by the powers-that-be and the calling into question of this violence by those who suffered under it, been as tangible and as well channelled by the by democratic social contract”.
These are the bourgeois observers themselves who raise questions about the intensity of this violence. Thus, the bourgeois will not have compromised on anything, within the limits of the “democratic social contract”, in order to force the acceptance, the approval, and to legitimise the new contract of domination they intend to impose on us. How else can we understand the risk taken by Hollande to attach himself to the side of Sarkozy, the strong man of the right?
Jean-Luc Melenchon’s decision to struggle for the “No” in the name of socialism, the battle within the PS, Tibault falling into a minority in the CCN and the CGT, the publication of the “appeal of the 200”, the support of Oskar Lafontaine, the account of the Rodez meeting: these were some of the many signs of the rise in support for the “No” in the country. The intensity of the discussions, the reception to many of the broadcasts, the shared idea to “avenge April 22”, all of this demonstrates that in their millions, women and men rediscovered their class instincts. The result of the vote brought out the feeling in people that they wanted to take part in the constitution as an immense collective force. In a word, it was class-consciousness that was strengthened and consolidated. All that remains to do today is to take an exact measure of this strength, which could be irresistible.
It is essential for the bourgeois and its supporters that they attempt to confuse the issue of the political importance of this vote. Fundamentally, it is a question of a massive working class vote: workers, peasants, youth, students, and the unemployed.
This attempt at confusion brings with it a denial, without the right of appeal for those who, after having called them to vote with the bosses, they now deny them their class character. They speak of reflexive voting, populism, of fear and many other such pejorative terms. They can comfort themselves all they like... but the facts will not go away.
All day we saw the procession of voters, the trustworthy queues. And in the evening, the results: clear and sharp like a blade. There is no room for nuances! It was the “yes” which received 82% of the vote in Neuilly and 68% in Versailles. The “no” received 76% in Henin-Beaumont, 72% in Bobigny, Drancy et Stains, 69% in Toulouse, and 59% in Lot, and the list of results like this could go on and on! If we look at St Etienne: 53% voted “no”. The city is dominated by the right wing, the PS called for a “yes” vote.
Then there are the results in Paris, Lyon, Strasbourg, Nantes etc. How do we explain these? These results in favour of “yes” were strictly in keeping with the level of average income per household (property speculation pushed the lower incomes into the periphery). This was in keeping with the image of divisions one notes on the income distribution map of INSEE, without forgetting unemployment. The BVA explains that the swing point between the “yes” and the “no” was around 1500 euros a month.
The root of the political explanation of the vote lies here. Precisely for this reason, this fact that stares us in the face, is evoked in an allusive way by the bourgeois press. This simple truth is harmful to the rhetoric of the bonapartist political conscience.
And for those who would still raise the question of the relation of this vote to Europe, one can take this up once again. For the large majority of these fifteen million citizens who voted “no”, the difficulties and problems of life are the main priority. They stem from the reactionary policies which organize unemployment, misery and insecurity under the name of “plans for employment”. The project manager? Those who invited us to vote so that this system can perpetuate itself on a European level, so that they can say to us afterwards, in connection with the suppression of the public services like employment or social rights: “We cannot do anything! It is Europe!” or “We need to do this, to make Europe competitive!”
If we want to save what we still have left, we must prevent them from acquiring new weapons! This is what the class said vis-a-vis its exploiters. April 22, 2002, Chirac-Bonaparte could still be a rallying point. He will not be able to do this anymore. This massive class vote in truth sounds the death knell of this political regime of class domination.
Chirac is nothing but the chairman of the board of the French bourgeois. He knows this perfectly well and will try to retain his grasp over the ranks of his camp who are beginning to tear each other apart. He does not even have the capacity anymore to implement the means which give him the anti-democratic institutions. His next government will undoubtedly resemble a fortified camp. We will very soon see with the restriction of the right to strike of the railway workers, the slashing of public services and his project “to facilitate sackings to create jobs”! After this vote, whether they want it or not, no other policy is possible other than to try to prevent this immense social force which appeared through the mobilizations for the “no”, to continue moving and mobilizing. It is precisely this prospect which will give, at the proper time, the signal for the next step. And millions of citizens will then pose the decisive question: who will govern and for whom?
In our camp, nobody will shed a tear over this late reactionary project that was to be used to tame the people of Europe. Essentially in France, the institutions of the 5th Republic continue to exist thanks only to the credit that the leaders of the political parties extend to them. These are the same leaders who represent us in the institutional “political game”. These institutions no longer have any legitimacy in the eyes of the large majority of the population. The “institutional game of democracy”, is amongst other things, unemployment, exclusion, cuts in education and hospitals, the misery of the prisons – and all of this in the name of the law, in the name of this constitution which says that whatever the legitimate aspirations of the people may be, it is the president who decides. On the other hand, we demand authentic democracy, a democracy which offers to millions of people the means of defining and of achieving, under their control, resolutions to the most urgent questions and problems. Today, with three million unemployed and a million people on benefits, the bosses require “social regulation”, for the workers these people are more than simply three million wasted lives to be sacrificed for a few extra euros. This is the field of ruins, with which those who demand our votes, are starting to fall in step with!
How, finally, can we avoid disorientation when, in the face of this accumulation of difficulties for the most impoverished, the leaders of left dared to say: “Whether it is “yes” or “no” that wins, it will not change anything for the workers”? By the way, what do the fifteen million workers who voted “no” think? Do their votes mean nothing, and will they simply disappear? For the profit of whom and for what? What must then determine our intervention, this massive working class vote or the attitude of resignation that the partisans of “yes”, who yesterday advised us to wait for? Is it necessary to recall, as this same Swiss editor wrote, that “...symbolic violence can be transmuted into real violence”.
The dissolution of the French National Assembly? A fresh round of elections? Chirac may be got rid of, but only to prevent “real violence” from doing it. To be acceptable, it will be necessary as a preliminary measure to force changes to the rules of the institutional game, to institute democratic representation! That the workers have effective means to be represented in the governing body of the Nation and that above all, the new assembly must be at the top of the agenda, of the choices before the working class, and not subordinate to a reactionary executive and dying man. But then, they will be the same battles as those fought at the time of the convocation of the Etats généraux the day before 1789. While waiting, the obvious clarity of this vote has now opened up the question of the institutions of the new republic. We take the point of view raised by Jean Jaurès, more current than ever, that the social Republic will sweep away this field of ruins that is the 5th Republic!
May 30, 2005
* Hugo Chavez defines ALBA thus: It is time to rethink and to reinvent the weakened and dying processes of regional integration [...]. Happily, in Latin America and in the Caribbean, a favourable wind blows for the launching of ALBA as a new plan of integration, which is not limited to simple trade and commerce, which is based on our common historic and cultural roots and which aims at political, social, cultural, scientific, technological and physical integration.
See also:
[Back to In Defence of Marxism] [Back to Comments and Opinion]