The Communists' 'Autonomous' Lists: Reasons for their Success

Raymond Debord (24/03/2004)

Translation by Julian Silvermann (Movements for socialism)

It is true that we have not emerged from the period of reaction and open disarray: the result of disillusion with the governments of the "plural left" (38% abstention and still a rightwing government). But the vote in the regional and cantonal elections clearly shows a willingness to punish the Chirac-Raffarin government. Although we do not have very detailed figures yet, the exit-polls indicate a clear trend: a rise in support for the left among ordinary people. This amounted to a majority of management, the intermediate professions and the workers. As for these, 8% voted 'extreme left' (which confims that they are well-rooted here) and 45% for the 'left'.The left was only in a minority among the blue collar workers (slightly) and the inactive. A vote "to teach them a lesson" the March 21st voting round was implicitly a class vote.

The French Communist Party is not dead.

In 16 regions out of 22, militant communists thought it best from round one on, to stand in a bloc with the Socialists. This retreat was based on blind panic at the thought of seeing the disaster of the Presidential elections further prolonged with a catastrophe at regional level. It was an electoralist and suicidal position as far as the future of the party is concerned. It implies "the final 'satelisation' of the Communist Party, and its 'regionalisation' to the role of a token force like the left radicals, the Citizens' and republican movement and the Green Party. More fundamentally this position proves that its advocates (notably Robert Hue, Jacques Brunes etc.) display no belief in the future of a communist movement in our country.

But the regional elections produced excellent results for the stand-alone lists offered by the PCF (Communist Party): 12, 3 % in Picardie, 10, 9 % in North Nord-Pas-de-Calais, 8, 5 % in Auvergne, 7, 5 % in Ile de France et 6 % in Aquitaine. The top of the list candidate in Picardie, Maxime Gremetz declared that "everybody is amazed at how we got four times the votes we'd had in the presidential elections and twice what we got at the legislative elections". (L'Humanité, 23/03/2004).

A few weeks ago we said that "despite the deep crisis into which it is plunged, the PCF is the only party with a solid place in society (but also known as 'the party of the working class' in the collective unconscious) which can claim to offer political representation to workers. In saying this, we are going against the analysis of a number of militants and certain of our close friends and comrades-in-arms who seem to be ready ro throw in the sponge in calling for support for the LO-LCR

We have seen that the PCF has not only shown its capacity to fight back, but also (amd there was serious room for doubt here) its capacity to win new voters. The point right now is to draw the necessary conclusions in such a way that the stand-alone line becomes quite clearly the national policy of the party, which is not yet the case.

Sectarianism is a dead end

The failure of the LO-LCR lists to make gains is no cause for rejoicing, as is the elimination of these organistaions from the regional councils, having lost their 23 representatives (20 LO, 3 LCR). Everyone knows that the comrades and sympathisers of these groups are actually among the most militant and devoted in the class struggle. Furthermore they are a significant part of the movement for radical global transformation of society. That it is not a trifling matter.

On the contrary, the election results show clearer than could have been predicted the impasse which results from the deadly combination of verbal radicalism and the inability to to understand the deep mechanisms involved in the development of class consciousness. Contrary to the tenets of Marxism, the LO-LCR leaders favoured their shopkeeper interests in giving out the message that they were opposed to the universal wish to punish Chirac-Raffarin. That they did so indicates that they were confusing their dreams with reality, seeing themselves as in a position to confirm their success in the presidential elections and pass the 10% mark in a series of regions. In this way they showed that they understood nothing of what was happening among the voters and they themselves created all the necessary conditions to ensure that they could not get beyond the famous 10%.

The Kamikaze tactic pursued by the National Front is not a correct tactic for the revolutionary movement. The correct tactic is to palce the general interests of the proletariat first and to attack the other left parties when they are not willing to take those interests into account. What they have got to understand is that a Communist or Socialist (or Green) voter will always be more ready to join a movement for change than a demoralised abstainer.

So it is by opening a path to the left, by showing a way to step ahead and not repeat the mistakes of the past (and of course by winning victories against the right) that one can develop consciousness.

Second Round: Vote Left

The comrades who made the question of non-participation the alpha and omega of revolutionary politiques committed a very grave analytical error of judgement. As the desire to punish the right grew they came to imagine that the voters were going to blame the leaders of the left parties for uniting in the second round. In the event of a left majority this meant confusing the outcome (Left unity) with the reason(bad politics). But the voters are not against unity: they are for unity with a good programme. And contrary to the commentators and theoreticians, people are concerned with the situation here and now. In April 2002 their disappointment led to break with the left. In march 2004 thier determination to beat the right brought them back to the left.

The trouble is that in the meantime the Socialist Party has not changed and that it intends in every coming election to offer the same programme as the one which failed. This is more than a problem, but you cannot resolve it by closing oneself up in an ivory tower of the "pure and strong" It is deplorable thtat the leaders of the PCF have not sought to take advantage of the contradictions at the heart of the PS, even if, today, Alain Boquet and Maxime Gremetz have adopted a posture which seems more militant than that of Marie-GeorgeBuffet. But it is certain that if the PCF had not had the perspective of victory fot the entire left, they would not have made the progress which they did in fact.

In any case, on the eve of the second round, its opportunism and the 'leftism' of the LO-LCR both contiguïté to closing the trap, placing voters with the choice of voting UMP or for a Socialist Party which rejects any critical self-appraisal. We are therefore in the worst situation possible to have any influence on the course of events.

Other than chosing to cut oneself off from the people in failing to open fire first of all on the capitalists - so long as it is they who wield the power - there is only one solution: to vote masively and without ambiguity for the left lists. It is only by offering the clearest victory possible that we can arm ourselves best against future betrayals on the part of the SP.

Among the Communist party left, some decided to oppose 'pure' autonomous (stand-alone) lists and the list of the "popular and citizens' left" led by Marie-George Buffet and Claire Villiers in the Ile de France (under very difficult circumstances). Apart from the fact that the Communist lists were always open to trade union personalities etc., the success of the various autonomous tendencies shows that it is wrong to oppose these things. Yes, it correct and necessary to reaffirm a high profile for the French Communist Party and "give it back its colours".But it is also correct and necessary for the Communist Party to attempt to be the federator of the popular left in general. One would have to continue along this path while engaging with activists in the social movement on every possible occasion and by all means leaving the door open to agreement with the far left. In any case the place for revolutionaries is in this movement and certainly not on the outside.