International Socialist Tendency - Internationale Socialisters Ungdom

Discussion Bulletin No7, January 2006the fundamental logic of the system.The Ligue’s draft Manifesto proposesthis type of approach in its transitionalsection. It should, however, be pointedout that the Ligue is having difficulty inputting such an approach into practice,and often sticks to an approach whichaims to be transitional but seems ratherrudimentary: on the one hand, a plan ofaction based around a few immediate demands,as radical as possible; on theother a general and rather quixotic treatiseon the necessary ‘rupture’ with capitalism.WHAT KIND OF NEW POLITICALFORCE IS REQUIRED?It would be interesting to look at theunited-front policy in more detail. Thesedays it is generally reduced to a simplepolicy of unity of action, whereas itshould really have a much broader dimension.I believe that a more general versionof the approach developed by the Liguein the 1970s is still relevant. There is,however, a new issue at stake: it is notsimply a case of rebuilding a workers’movement (first and foremost a tradeunion movement) based on ‘class foundations’;this approach must dovetailwith an ‘alliance’ policy, which involvesforming a social and political ‘bloc’ withthe said ‘social movements’. 8Moreover, as in the past, the battle fora new political force must fit in with thistype of approach, as it cannot developoutside broader movements for the restructuringof the workers’ movementand the ‘social movement’.What is more, it should be clear, giventhe points raised in this article, that thepurpose of this new political force wouldnot be to bring together ‘revolutionaries’in the sense that the Ligue used theword in the wake of 1968. ‘Revolutionary’organisations can naturally be involvedin this process.However, if we are talking in concreteterms, we come up against the particularcharacter of Lutte Ouvrière in France (tosay nothing of the ‘Lambertist current’).The only thing we can say today, as ageneral rule, is that this new force musthave two characteristics.First, it must have an anti-capitalistpolicy and a socialist outlook; second, aswords are not enough, it must clearly differentiateitself from socio-liberal policies.This second point is naturally veryimportant. Such a force could avoid certainquestions linked to general strategicissues (in its basic programme), but it isdifficult to see how currents could coexistwhen some are prepared to considerparticipating in a government – not justany government, but a government withthe Socialist Party (Hollande version orFabius version). 9As for the rest, it is difficult to go anyfurther except to point out that a newpolitical force is never created ex nihilo.It can only be created through the meetingof political currents (in the generalsense of the term political), although itcannot be reduced to that.Even if we suppose that the Ligue wereprepared to head in this direction, it doesnot seem to me that there are any othernational political currents which sharethis outlook at the moment. This is preciselyone of the crucial problems of thecurrent situation.We must nevertheless continue to fighton this front, and everyone will agreethat the battle for a No vote from the lefton the draft European constitution hasopened up a new playing field.One of the decisive issues is identifyinghow the Ligue – and this is also trueof other currents – can make proposalswhich help to gain ground – obviouslynot as regards the creation of a new force(this would be illusory), but to encouragethe crystallisation of political currents‘on the left of the left’. It isimpossible to say more until we knowwhat the conditions for discussion willbe post-referendum.I will simply say, in the spirit of the currentpiece, that I believe it is necessaryto go into more depth on programmaticaspects. It would be senseless to try togive details of the programme for thisnew force in advance.Therefore, the Ligue is – quite rightly– presenting its draft Manifesto as a Manifestofor the Ligue and, in addition, as acontribution to discussion. However,the nature of the programmatic elementsput forward by the Ligue, notably itsability to develop and discuss elementsof the transitional programme, is of greatimportance. There are plenty of them inthe Manifesto; now they need to beproperly submitted to political debate.Translated by Liz Chapman: to make thearticle more readable it has been brokenup into smaller paragraphs than in theoriginal.1 Daniel Bensaïd’s brochure Stratégie et parti(La Brèche, 1987), sums up the results of theLigue’s work of elaboration over this period. Itsrelevance for the future is also reaffirmed as a delimitingfactor for the recomposition of theworkers’ movement – which is more problematic.2 I personally have been raising this issue in theLigue since 1987 (although without much success)by explaining, among other things, that inthe coming period the politicisation of radicalisedsectors is more likely to take the form of7a ‘radical democratism’ than of interest in a revolutionarycommunist programme. I was not sofar out, and this is an accurate reflection of theLigue’s actual reality today.3 E.J. Hobsbawm, The Age of Extremes: TheShort Twentieth Century, 1914-1991,(London, 1994).4 It would be necessary here to show how continuedreference to these seminal texts operatesin an increasingly mythic fashion. In otherwords, people do not even read them any more,but simply sum them up in a few set phrases. Itseems to me that, on the contrary, critical rereadingis essential.5 Obviously, this strategy could not be reducedto a simple call for a general strike and insurrection.On this subject, see Stratégie et Parti (opcit) and the opposition of this hypothesis to thatof ‘protracted revolutionary war’. Also see myremarks on this subject in my article ‘Démocratieet émancipation sociale’, Critique Communisteno 159/160, summer/autumn 2000.6 These demands can be found in the summaryof the book in Actuel Marx n° 35, 2004.7 See, for example, my argument with ThomasCoutrot’s book Démocratie contre capitalisme(La Dispute, 2005), also in this issue of CritiqueCommuniste.8 See the related remarks in my contribution toCahier de Critique communiste: ‘Classe ouvrière,salariat, luttes des classes’ (Syllepse,2005).9 Editorial Note: François Hollande is the generalsecretary of the Socialist Party (PS); LaurentFabius, who, as prime minister under FrançoisMitterrand in the 1980s, pioneered the PS’s shifttowards social liberalism, led the rebellion insidethe party against the official party line of supportingthe European Constitution.