 |
|  |
|
Jean-Luc Mélenchon‘s ‘Now the people The importance of LFI and the role of Mélenchon means that it necessary for Marxists and the politically active layers of the working class to analyse and grasp the nature of what it signifies politically. La France Insoumise and Mélenchon reflect important international processes unfolding in the new radical left. Mélenchon, in his recently translated book, ‘Now the people – Revolution in the 21st century’ outlines how he and LFI view the new era of global capitalism. It includes the tasks which, in his view, which are now posed, including the character, programme and methods of the new radical left forces. In this he partly reflects his own political history and the tradition of French philosophy as opposed to the empiricism which has been more dominant in the Anglo-Saxon world. Mélenchon’s analysis of the current era of capitalism, and the dystopian future it offers, attempts to give a theoretical justification for the character of the revolution in France and elsewhere, and of the movement he leads, LFI. Organisational form reflects political content. Therefore, an understanding of the political foundation of Mélenchon and La France Insoumise is essential to grasp the form LFI takes. However, this goes beyond France to other countries where ‘new left’ movements have emerged in the past or are currently developing in others. As Mélenchon says, this book, “is my contribution to these movements of resistance, wherever they may be in today’s globalised world. It puts forward a political theory”. Mélenchon correctly argues we need to “fully understand before we move to act”. He draws upon the resistance and revolutionary movements that have taken place globally in the Arab spring, Ecuador, Venezuela, Chile, Sri Lanka and elsewhere. His conclusion is that we are now in a new era of global capitalism. Something that we would not disagree with. What conclusions are to be drawn from this are another matter. In a wide-ranging historical summary of society Mélenchon briefly deals with the development of human civilisation from the emergence of cities, (in 1950, only 20% of the world’s population lived in cities but by the year 2000 it was 80%), and the significance of population growth on changes in the social system. Mélenchon comments on the impact of modern communications, AI, and the relationship between modern capitalist consumerism and the environmental catastrophe that is unfolding. Mélenchon and LFI lay heavy emphasis on this critical issue. In this review it is not possible to adequately comment on all the issues Mélenchon raises, all of which are crucial for Marxists to address in the new era of capitalism. Devastating condemnation of capitalist society As one would expect, Mélenchon uses material that gives a devastating condemnation of capitalist society, especially on the effects it is having on human existence, and the consequences of global polarisation which has taken place. During the COVID-19 pandemic a new billionaire was created every 36 hours while one million more plunged into poverty. Twenty-six billionaires have as much wealth as four billion people! The consequences of modern capitalism on all aspects of life are a devastating critique of it as a social system. Around 250 million people on the verge of starvation. And there are 12,000 deaths a year because of noise pollution. The explosion in night work, often flowing from “just in time” production, results in less sleep for millions of workers. In France, four million employees work at night – one in five employees, twice as many as in 1990. It has led to workers having a higher chance of contracting multiple illnesses from cancer to cardiac decease. And12 million people in France cannot adequately heat their homes. Over 2,000 people die on the streets every year in France. In the US, in 2023, one million people experienced homelessness for the first time. In the US, suicide rates amongst nurses are twice the national average due to stress and pressures of the work. Globally nine million deaths per year are due to air pollution. One can conclude as he does that “capitalism is unsustainable”. The material Mélenchon draws on regarding the climatic and environmental crises is apocalyptic. By 2030, 50% of the world’s population will be living in regions facing water shortages. Already two billion people have no secure access to drinking water. Six billion have access to a mobile phone but only 4.5 billion have access to a toilet. In France, two million people have difficulty accessing drinking water due to rising bills. Water wars, mass migration of millions are all poised to surge. Mélenchon poses the need for a revolution. However, there are numerous holes in his bucket. He does not explain the social character of the revolution necessary to replace capitalism. Crucially, he diminishes the central role of the working class in the revolution or what character a revolution needs to assume to defeat and replace capitalism. Mélenchon wrongly asserts that the struggle between “proletarians and bourgeois has been fought”. Thus, by implication it is over. Historically it has and is being fought but not yet to a conclusion. Today, Mélenchon asserts, is the era of “the people”. This is leading or has led to “citizens” revolutions. The struggle is between “them and us”. In this argument, Mélenchon reverts to the terminology of the bourgeois democratic revolution in France in 1789. Tellingly, Mélenchon takes pride quoting one of his heroes, Maximilien Robespierre, (leader of the Jacobins in the bourgeois revolution) rather than drawing on others, for example, Gracchus Babeuf and the ‘Conspiracy of Equals’ (1796) which attempted an uprising of plebians against the rising bourgeoisie. Mélenchon quotes from Robespierre’s speech to the Jacobin Club in 1792, “I am of the people, I have never been anything but that, I want to be nothing but that; I despise anyone who purports to be something more”. Mélenchon has tried to follow this example, he says. He has been congratulated by commuters on the Paris Metro for travelling by public transport. In Mélenchon’s only reference to socialism in the book, he claims the “citizens” revolution, “Does not mean the old socialist revolution. A term that can longer be mentioned in case anyone gets frightened.” Although Mélenchon concedes that some of the issues and tasks in today’s “citizens” revolutions are the same. Mélenchon does not exclude the working class, or deny its existence, but sees it as only one component of “the people”. Central to his conclusion is the changed composition of the working class. He points to the growth of the “precariat” and that the working class has become “dispersed”. Thus, he concludes, it constitutes “the people” and he draws wrong conclusions from this. At first glance this may appear correct given the massive concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the 1%, as opposed to the rest of society; the growth of the precariat; and increased exploitation of large sections of the petty bourgeoisie. Yet “the people” is not a homogeneous group. Within it are many layers and varied classes. The issue is which class within “the people” can play the decisive, leading role to overthrow capitalism, take society forward and establish an alternative social system – socialism. It is the working class, with its cohesion and collective class consciousness. This is the case even when it is in a minority, as it was in the 1917 Russian revolution. It is the working class, with the support of others exploited by capitalism, which can play this role. Behind Mélenchon’s idea here is the crucial question of the weakened position of the traditional industrial proletariat, and the changed composition of the working class especially in Europe, Latin America and the US. He does not comment on the explosive growth of the industrial working class in other areas of the world, such as some parts of Asia, especially China, India, Indonesia and some other countries. These are critical questions that Marxists must address in this era. It is undeniable that the de-industrialisation that has taken place in most of Europe, the USA and Latin America have consequentially weakened, in some countries substantially, the traditional industrial proletariat. There has also been the growth of the precariat and the emergence of semi-working-class layers from former petty bourgeois sections of society. This has impacted the political situation and the organisations of the working class, especially the trade unions. This has been combined with the effects of the collapse of the former Stalinist states, which led to a throwing back of political consciousness of the working class and ideological collapse of the ‘left”. Apart from a small minority, the idea of socialism as an alternative social system to capitalism has largely been absent. This has taken place precisely at the time when capitalism has entered a new era of intense crisis and polarisation; its protracted death agony. We have been in a period where the ruling classes felt themselves unchallenged. This is now changing, as recent struggles and uprisings have shown. The ruling classes today are terrified of any challenge to it from the left, even a relatively soft left as currently exists. They fear the potential of the mass movement behind such left formations, which can threaten ruling class interests and eventually its existence. The ruling class therefore takes every step to attempt to discredit and defeat even relatively mildly left forces for fear of what they may unleash. “The era of the people” An explosive but complex situation exists globally. Yet what Mélenchon fails to address in his theory of “the era of the people” is that whilst the traditional industrial proletariat has been weakened, a rapid process of proletarianization of large sections of the middle class and petty bourgeois has also taken place. This has been reflected in former layers of the middle class resorting to strike action and other forms of struggle that previously had been the preserve of the traditional working class in general. However, this process is still unfolding. These newly formed layers of the working class or semi working-class have yet to fully develop and embrace the collective class consciousness and methods of struggle of the working class. From this, a socialist political consciousness can develop. The emergence of these layers poses important challenges for the workers’ movement, especially the trades unions, of how to organise them. It poses above all the need to transform the trades unions into fighting combat organisations. At the same time, those sections of the traditional working class that remain, although weakened, can still play a decisive role. Potentially they remain a very powerful force even with diminished numbers. For example, sectors of workers in transport, health, utilities and some industries that still exist in some countries. The new layers of the working class, the precariat, and other semi-proletarianised layers (which is very sizable in major cities like London or Paris) reflect a certain plebian character, at this stage, for example amongst sections of “self-employed” workers. New challenges are posed of how to organise these layers. The character of these sections of society has been reflected politically. These layers along with parts of the petty bourgeoisie, have tended to dominate the new “radical left” that emerged, for example, in PODEMOS in Spain, Syriza in Greece, La France Insoumise in France or the Corbynistas in Britain. This, combined with the character of the leadership of these movements, most of which had previously collapsed ideologically and abandoned raising the issue of socialism, is reflected in the programme and methods of organisation of these movements. In the main, they have not actively involved, at this stage, large layers of the organised working class. These movements are extremely significant and important. But it is essential to recognise their limitations and what their character. They can be a part of the process of rebuilding the political organisations of the working class but are unfinished and it has been, and is, uncertain how they will develop. Some like PODEMOS or Syriza have, in effect, been absorbed into acting as managers of capitalism. The development of these organisations reflects a growing polarisation and anger in society. A mood against the elite, the oligarchs, neo-liberalism and sometimes against capitalism itself, exists in many countries. A burning anger about the state of the world is reflected with a hatred of the ruling elite in many countries. Yet thus far, these organisations politically have mainly reflected radical left populist ideas. In organisational form they have been more of a “movement” rather than a party. They have not yet been mass workers’ parties with a socialist programme. They have reflected the social character of those involved and the leadership. Mélenchon is clear about this. He is opposed to a “party.” He defends the building of a looser, more amorphous “movement”. This is not something totally new in France and some other countries. Amongst some layers in the past, the idea that the mass movement is everything has existed. It is all powerful! With the programme and polices and how a the left is organised to struggle has been brushed aside as secondary. The idea of a movement rather than a party can appears very democratic and is often a reaction to the decay of the old organisations, namely their lack of democracy, and the careerism, corruption and selling out to the capitalist order. But movements without real democratic structures, not just occasional referenda, can in fact give the ‘leader’ or leadership unfettered powers if the ‘movements’ rank and file have no means to democratically debate and decide issues while controlling what is done. On-line plebiscites and comment are not a substitute for real debate and discussion in meetings where a full exchange of ideas can take place. These trends are a part of the era recently which has thus far ideologically been dominated by populism, of the left and the right. Mélenchon reflects this. Through experience of struggle – industrially, socially and politically – this period of populism will change. Possibly very quickly. However, the historical processes cannot be truncated; there are no short cuts, particularly in revolutionary politics. The current political process in France has many lessons for the international situation which are reflected in Mélenchon’s ideas. The recent mass protests and strikes, involving millions against the government, show how Macron’s regime has little or no social base to rest upon. The polarisation in French society is reflected in the paralysis in the National Assembly. It is currently split three ways between the hard right-wing Rassemblement National (RN), led by Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella, the left led by La France Insoumise, and the rump of supporters of Macron’s increasingly lame duck Presidency. The new government has been compelled to postpone Macron’s pension reform and survived a vote of no confidence as the Partie Socialiste (PS) social democracy split and a section of it propped up the fragile government. For how long remains to be seen. Not surprisingly many commentators now conclude that France is now “ungovernable.” In other words, bourgeois democracy is no longer able to provide a stable, reliable government for the ruling class. This is part of a revolutionary process. Threat from Rassemblement National The current political crisis is the culmination of an unfolding process in France like what has taken place in many other countries. In France, in a sense, it began at the beginning of the century. The first indication of what was to come was in 2002 when Jean-Marie Le Pen from the far- right FN (Front National, now known as the Rassemblement National since its 2018 rebranding) reached the run- off in the Presidential elections. Then Le Pen was overwhelmingly defeated as millions held their noses and voted for the bourgeois candidate, Jacques Chirac, to defeat Le Pen. In the run-off, Chirac won 82% of the vote in round two. Yet it was a warning. When Jean-Marie Le Pen’s daughter, Marine Le Pen, leading RN, reached the second round in 2022, she won 41% of the vote! However, the 2002 elections were also marked by another aspect of the process. The traditional parties of the French left, the bourgeoisified Partie Socialiste, and the Parti Communiste Francais, were humiliated. The PS scrambled together 16.8% of the vote and the PCF 3.37%! These two parties, it must be remembered, had been the two solid pillars of the left in France since the end of the second world war. Until the late 1970s, the PCF was winning between 20% and 25% of the vote. In 1980 it still had 500,000 members. The PCF’s rigid Stalinist programme and methods allowed the PS, after a makeover in 1969, to develop as the larger of the two. By the late 1970s, the PS, led by Francois Mitterand, had swung to the left, forming the ‘Union of the Left’ with the PCF. This alliance swept to power in 1981 with Mitterrand’s election to the Presidency on a radical left reformist programme. Amongst other things, the Mitterrand government promised to take over large sections of the economy and a “rupture with capitalism”. The rupture with capitalism never came. Confronted with a flight of capital, attacks from the bond markets, and a furious campaign by the French bourgeoisie, the government capitulated. It declared a “parenthesis” – a “temporary holt” in its radical reform. Yet “temporary” became permanent and its radical left programme was abandoned. Although wining a second term in 1988, Mitterrand returned to the Elyse Palace on a far less radical programme. Following this betrayal, the PS and the PCF shifted further to the right. Over a period, their historic base of support was eroded. The international process of the bourgeoisification of the former bourgeois workers’ parties like the PS rapidly took place and was accelerated by the collapse of the former Stalinist states in 1991/2. This eventually resulted in the decimating of the PS and the PCF as the main parties of the French left. 2002 however was not only marked by the FN getting into the second round. The thirst for a radical socialist alternative to the left of the PS and PCF was also reflected in this election. While the PS was reduced to a mere 16.17%, eight other left or Green parties combined won 29% of the vote. Amongst them was 5.72% won by the Trotskyist Arlette Laguiller of Lutte Ouvriere and 4.24% for the USFI French section, the Ligue Communiste Revolutionaire, headed by Olivier Besancenot. These forces were however incapable of capitalising on this opportunity due to a combination of ultra-leftism and opportunism and the complex world objective situation at that time. The traditional parties of both left and right saw an erosion of their social base. This opened a massive political vacuum and social chasm. This was couple with economic de-industrialisation and destruction of entire communities, especially in northern France, which were once bastions of the PCF. The FN, and then as the revamped RN, were able to step into the vacuum, appealing to some of the most oppressed layers of the French working class, often using rhetoric previously used by the left, as well as fostering racism. The obliteration of the PS was reflected in the 2017 elections. Its presidential candidate won a mere 6% of the vote. By 2022, this fell even further to a humiliating 2% of the vote! Macron capitalised on the situation and took 66% of the vote against Le Pen in the run-off in 2017. Today Macron’s approval ratings stand at between 7 and 17%! The LFI also gained from the collapse of the PS and traditional French left. Enter Jean-Luc Mélenchon. He was born in Tangiers, in today’s Morocco, in 1951, of Spanish and Sicilian decent. He moved to France in 1962. There Mélenchon joined a Trotskyist group, Organisational Communiste Internationaliste, led by Pierre Lambert. This group conducted “deep entryism” within the PS, generally hiding Marxist politics. Parts of this grouping is now in the La France Insoumise. Mélenchon maintains links with the OCI’s successor organisations, recently attending one Congress of theirs. Yet this does not mean that today Mélenchon ever speaks of ‘socialism’. When he joined the PS, he became associated with the Mitterrand wing of the party. The party later lurched to the right, and Mélenchon eventually split and formed the parti de Gauche (PG), the Left Party, in 2009, following the global financial crisis of 2008. Mélenchon concluded that social democracy was historically finished, and he eventually launched La France Insoumise (LFI) in 2016. Having launched the parti de Gauche, Mélenchon has taken a step back when launching the LFI. He insists the LFI is not a party but a “movement” reflecting the new “era of the people” and the “citizens” revolution. He draws upon the experience not only of PODEMOS in Spain but also of the movements in Latin America, especially in Ecuador and Venezuela. This was at the early stage of the revolutionary process of Hugo Chavez’s ‘Bolivarian revolution’ rather than during the “socialist” rhetoric that Chavez took up following the attempted coup in 2002 to oust him from power. Mélenchon sees these revolutionary movements, and others, like the Arab Spring, and mass revolts in recent years in Chile, Sri Lanka and other countries, as part of the process of “citizens revolutions”. Mélenchon is right to take inspiration from these movements, as illustrating the revolutionary potential that is present in the new era of capitalism. However, Mélenchon fails to draw conclusions from them. These mass movements are just left hanging as models of the new “citizens” revolutions. Significantly Mélenchon is silent about why all of these movements either hit a wall or were defeated. A rigid stages approach to revolutionary processes Mélenchon divides the revolutionary process into three rigidly separate stages. The “destituent”, the “instituent” and finally the “constituent”. The “destituent” tears down the old order. The “instituent” establishes “the people” as the main actor, and finally the “constituent” creates new institutions to rule. The “constituent” phase of the revolution, according to Mélenchon, flows from the “destituent” process and ends up calling for a constituent assembly. The mass revolutionary upsurges Mélenchon refers to, indeed all revolutions, do unfold through different phases. However, a mechanical, rigid separation of them is not what is involved in a revolutionary process. Each constitute a part of a process. The crucial issue posed, however, is whether an alternative power is built to replace the state machine of the old order through which the ruling class ruled. How is capitalist rule to be ended and what social system is to replace it, are the central issues posed. What is Mélenchon’s objective – a “citizens revolution” of what and for what? To be successful in ending capitalist rule a revolutionary socialist programme, organisation and party is necessary to advocate the concrete steps needed to achieve that goal. These were lacking in the “citizens” revolutions that Mélenchon draws upon and explains why they ultimately failed and the capitalist order remained in power. He lays great stress on one aspect of these movements, the emergence of the assemblies in neighbourhoods or localities which took place. These, by implication, Mélenchon sees as the emerging alternative power. Although in some countries like Sudan during the revolutionary movements that began in 2019, committees were established, they did not link up and become the basis for a genuine workers’ and poor people’s government. In other recent mass movements in Sri Lanka, Chile and elsewhere, there were gatherings of neighbours or protesters, but these did not develop. Mélenchon includes the Gilets Jaunes, Yellow Vest movement in France, in the same category. Those developments were very significant. Yet they were also unstructured, amorphous, lacking a clear programme and democratic structure. In essence, they fizzled out and dissolved. Those who played the most militant role were edged aside. They were not the basis for an alternative state power which could confront and replace the existing state of the ruling capitalist classes. They were not comparable to the soviets in revolutionary Russia in 1917 or the Cordones Industriales in Chile in 1972/3. These were elected councils of workers, subject to recall. These were organs of struggle and the basis for a new state to be constructed. Mélenchon conflates two different forms of organisation, (or lack of it in one instance), into one. In arguing as he does, Mélenchon reveals how detached he is from these events and romanticises them – a fatal mistake for a revolutionary. The CWI analysed in detail and participated in these events (see: The Constituent Assembly and Other Questions Arising from the Recent Uprisings in Latin America | Socialist World Media and Sri Lanka crisis: What is to be done? | Socialist World Media) In the revolutionary movements which erupted in Chile, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere in recent decades, the working class was present but not as a consciously organised collective force leading the revolutionary uprisings. The movements were multi-class, often dominated by semi-proletarian or petty bourgeois layers, and often with a plebian populist character. This was reflected in the form of organisation and programme they adopted. Of course, this varied in different countries. In some, the trade unions played a more decisive role, for example in Ecuador and Tunisia. But the character of these movements, the absence of organisation and lack of a clear political programme were important common elements. The failure to overcome these obstacles resulted in all these movements eventually hitting a wall or being defeated. The changed composition of the working class in many countries, de-industrialisation, and absence of the massive factories upon which the soviets or cordones were based, means that these forms of organisations are unlikely to be repeated in exactly the same way in many countries. Other mass forms of organisation however will need to emerge and be built that can play the same role. Committees of struggle elected in the workplaces, linking together with community or neighbourhood organisations, with a structure, and elected delegates subject to recall, in some form, will be necessary. And with a revolutionary socialist programme, together with a party of the working class and poor, will be essential for any revolutionary movement to be successful and to overthrow the capitalist regimes. The social urban movements are a crucial component today in the neo-colonial world and the need to link them together with the working class is an important task. The explosion of the urban population has brought with it an army of the urban poor, and street vendors and the like. This issue is now also present in many industrialised countries, albeit in a somewhat different form. For example, as seen in the movement against housing evictions in Spain. However, the structures of the organs of struggle are not enough. A party of the working class and poor is necessary to argue the case for a socialist revolution and the concrete steps needed to achieve that goal in opposition to the pro-capitalist and confused currents that reject such a course. It is necessary to advocate an alternative social system, socialism, and give this content to confront capitalist rule. Mélenchon unfortunately fails to do this. This is one of the crucial lessons to take from the revolutionary upsurges which have taken place. Lessons from the Paris Commune in 1871 are possibly instructive of what can possibly emerge. Mélenchon refers to 1789 and the Parisian sans-culottes ‘sections’ in 1792. But he negates any reference to the experience of 1871 when an alternative state did briefly take power. In his book Mélenchon draws a comparison with the neighbourhood assemblies, the sans-culottes ‘sections’, and the soviets in 1917. However, they are totally different in composition, role and potential. The formlessness of the concept of “the movement” rather than party has been expressed by Mélenchon in relation to the LFI, which he has literally referred to as ‘gaseous’ (a cloud). It flows from his idea of the “era of the people” and “citizens revolutions”. The current crisis in France has led La France Insoumise to call for the ending of the 5th Republic and the convening of a 6th Republic. Mélenchon has taken up one of the demands of the ‘gilet jaunes’ (Yellow Vests) for an ending of the “monarchical excesses” of the Presidency and more powers to the National Assembly in which “citizens” can propose their own referendums. France has had 15 constitutions since 1789. A call to end the 5th Republic however needs to be linked with the idea of not merely a political change to the bourgeois constitution but for a new social system – socialism. Something the LFI and Mélenchon do not explicitly demand despite sharp denunciations of capitalism. Consumerism and ‘endless economic growth’ One of his attacks on capitalism centres on the issue of economic growth. He denounces social democracy for capitulating to the idea of consumerism and endless economic growth. The idea of “degrowth” is expressed in different forms by sections of the “new left” internationally. He rightly argues that unfettered growth and consumerism under capitalism is incompatible with sustaining the world’s eco-system. He gives illuminating examples of the waste contained within capitalism production. A television in the 1980s worked on average for 11 years. Now it lasts for only six years. The life span of a personal computer has been cut by 66% from 10 years in 1990 to a mere three years today. The ravages of the food industry Mélenchon exposes brutally. In France, 50 million male chicks and 20 million female ducklings are deemed useless for production purposes. They are therefore crushed alive, as soon as they are born, every year. Yet implicit is his argumentation against capitalist growth and consumerism is the idea of de-growth or zero growth to protect the environment. Under a democratic socialist plan of production, the waste and capitalist consumerism would be eliminated. Planned growth, in harmony with the planetary eco-system would not only be entirely possible but necessary. One issue historically in Mélenchon’s analysis that is flawed is his assertion that leaps in the population give rise to a systemic social change or social changes. The rate of human population has dramatically accelerated. It took 300,000 years for the number of humans to reach 1 billion – close to the start of the industrial era around 1820. Yet one hundred years later there were two billion more. The second billion arrived 3,000 times faster than the first billion. Now there is an extra billion every 12 years or so. After 2100 the population is estimated to fall, he concludes, too late. Yet the issue is not only the size of the human population but the social system. Mélenchon claims that every time the population doubles there is a change in the “human condition”, or we can assume social conditions and system. There is an element of truth in this. Rapid population growth is a factor in the process of changing social conditions and even systems. However, it is not the only factor, and the opposite can also occur. A change or development in the social system progressively can lead to a population growth. Likewise, a fall in the population can also result in a fundamental social change. The “black death” in Europe between 1346-1353 killed an estimated 50 million people, nearly 50% of Europe’s population at the time. However, it resulted in a weakening and change in feudalism. Conditions for the peasants improved, arising from a massive labour shortage. The changes within feudalism, at the time, helped pave the way for the development of early capitalism later. After a devastating critique of capitalism what at the end is Mélenchon’s conclusion? He calls for a break with the existing world order and for a new direction in human history that “does not lock the future into any preconceived model.” He calls for “virtue” which must be based on equality. But how? His answer is “creolisation”. A term which originated in the Caribbean, where contact between different groups led to the formation of new languages. By “creolisation” he means a process whereby cultures, languages, and people mix to create something new. This, Mélenchon concludes, is the future of “humanity which is soaring to new heights”. Yet to achieve this a clear alternative social system to capitalism – socialism – is necessary. Capitalism can offer no way forward for society. It is dragging society backwards now with powerful features of social disintegration and decay present. Any new left party needs to include the idea of socialism as part of its objectives and programme. Yet to have it written into its constitution is not enough. It is essential to explain what it means and to fight for it. Die Linke (Left Party) in Germany includes socialism in its objectives but fails to campaign for it or explain what it means. It is quite possible in Britain that ‘Your Party,’ when it is finally established, will include reference to ‘socialism’ as its objective. To be successful it must go further, and explain what it is and link it to the day to day demands and needs of the working class and what programme is necessary to achieve it. To achieve socialism a clear understanding of the role of the working class, and all other classes in society, the methods of struggle, programme, and organisation necessary to achieve it is essential. Despite the central and decisive role that La France Insoumise is playing today, unfortunately Mélenchon lacks clarity on these critical questions, as outlined in his book, despite the importance of the issues he raises. www.socialistworld.net Back |
|
||||||
|
|||||||
