SPLIT IN THE FRENCH « MILITANT »

In January we formed a new editorial committee with some new "independent" comrades and a small group of six ex-PCF members who were editing the bulletin Promethee. It seemed to us that these comrades were very close politically and that things were going in a good direction. We had known these comrades for a long time and had a lot of confidence in them. Some of them had formerly been members of the CWI and had left at the same time as us.

It transpired to our great surprise that these comrades obviously considered the fusion a mistake. In fact they had only adhered in a very formal manner to our common platform. The main, unspoken, difference rested on the conception of the organisation and its press. When we were preparing Promethee no. 61, these comrades expressed differences with three articles sent by members of our group. They refused to publish them and, since they were in a minority on the editorial board, they preferred to split so as not to have to circulate the bulletin. The full exchange of correspondence will soon be put online on our website.

For us, the main difference is naturally the conception of the press and the necessity to split with sectarianism in favour of an open, public, pluralist debate. According to them, the comrades had expressed the following points of difference with us, among others: 1) on the characterisation of the trade unions, which they considered too hard; 2) on our criticism of the capitalist and middle-class management ; 3) on our criticism of "citizenship" ; 4) on our condemnation of the ethnicisation of political debate in France.

It is very difficult for me to explain further: all our articles wil be put online, but in French. I can just send the following article which puts forward, in English, ideas which are close to ours: http://www.mondialisme.org/article.php3?id_article=386

To sum up, I would say that the comrades conducted themselves in an opportunist/sectarian manner. Sectarian in their conception of the organisation, and opportunist in that they didn't want to come forward with positions that were too entrenched, for fear of shocking the trade union circles that they frequent.

We are very disappointed by this painful experience, which unfortunately only confirms our idea that it is necessary to break with sectarian circles to turn towards the workers and what comrade John Throne called "fresh forces" when I met him ten years ago.

Fraternally,

Raymond

Date : samedi 14 mai 2005 13:05

Thank you for this explanation, and thanks Roger for translating this. You have my sympathies. Such internal battles are always draining.

John

Date : samedi 14 mai 2005 13:36

Raymond I am sorry to hear about the situation in the French group. You have my solidarity at this time. I am interested to read more about the situation. Some Comrades get frightened when faced with the need to adjust to the needs of the new world situation and retreat into positions they have held for the past decades. I do not know if this is the case with the people who split off or not but there seems to be signs that it is.

Comradely Sean

Date : mardi 24 mai 2005

Dear comrade Sean,

The "debate" with the comrades is very paradoxical. They broke to not have to publish a bulletin with positions which they disagreed, but it is new. Indeed, these comrades (mainly the editor of Prométhée) claimed themselves of an "opened" tradition, like the newspaper La Révolution Prolétarienne of Monatte and Rosmer (see http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/374/rosmer.html). These comrades condemned also the "bolchevisation" of PCF (1925) and regarded the zinovievism as the anteroom of Stalinism. We are thus very surprised of their attitude. On the other hand it is obvious that the comrades are very embarassed by some relatively new aspects in the French and international situation. They were very uncomfortable with the description in the article of the comrade Domenique Cornet of an impressive rise of individualism in the high-school students (who demonstrated per hundreds of thousands in February-March-April). They were also confused by the fact that the article seeks to release from the positive elements on which to rest in this new mood of the young people. The comrades also are very embarassed to position in the debate which currently makes rage in the French left (and British!) around the question of secularism. I take for proof that they withdrew the article of Amir Saghi on the Islam published in Prométhée n°60 of the synopsis published on their website. For me they are afraid to cut influential laic mediums with the PS and especially in the left of PCF even if they do not agree with them. Finally the comrades are very hostile to the analyses which I produced (but also Samir Benkheldoun and Domenique Cornet) on the question of the middle class and what we name the class of capitalist management. They find us too much radical and are afraid to be marginalized and cut from the mainstream left" and trade-union milieus. In two words we try to show in what the new republican ideology of the left ("citizenism") is an attempt for the middle class to reorganize politically vis-a-vis with social-liberalism and without the working class. In this direction the comrades seem to us rather preserving and refuse according to us to opposite see reality. They obviously prefer to continue to address itself to the traditional mediums of left rather than to turn itself as we wish it towards the blue collars workers, precarious youth, inhabitants of popular suburbs etc.

Hoping partially to have answered your interrogations,

Receive, dear comrade, my fraternal greetings

Raymond