international viewpoint · palestine - philippines - italy iv390 - june 2007 international...

IV390 - June 2007

INTERNATIONALVIEWPOINT

News and analysis from the Fourth International

Italy - PRC at the watershed

Palestine - The crisis in Gaza

Philippines -Electoral fraud athome,exploitationabroad

Plus -François

Sabado onrevolutionary

strategy

PalestineThe Crisis in Gaza: Made in Israel - Michel Warschawski 3Gaza - Stop inter-Palestinian fighting - LCR 4

Philippines Padding and shaving - Clara Maria Sanchez 5Exporting domestic labour -

the Philippines' participation in globalisation? - Eva Olaer Ferraren 6

ItalyCannavò's farewell - Fabrizio Roncone 8The Watershed of June 9 - Sinistra Critica 9

Marxist Theory Elements of revolutionary strategy - François Sabado 11

France The presidential election and debates on the Left - François Duval 20Preparing for the presidential elections -

a minority report - Alain Mathieu, Patrick Tamerlan 23

PakistanFarooq Tariq arrested - again! - Khaliq Shah 28Appeal for the release of Farooq Tariq 28Farooq Tariq Released! 29The 15 Jail Days - Farooq Tariq 29

Portugal Fifth Convention of the Left Bloc - Raul Camargo 31

International Viewpoint - IV390 - June 2007

2

Palestine - Philippines - Italy

IV390 - June 2007

INTERNATIONAL VIEWPOINTis a review of news and analysis publishedunder the auspices of the Executive Bureau

of the Fourth International. IV appears online at

www.internationalviewpoint.organd in a monthly pdf version.

Editorial office: PO Box 112, Manchester M12 5DW UK

ISSN 1294-2925


3

The old dream of Ariel Sharon isbecoming a reality: Palestinians arekilling Palestinians, and Israel iscounting the number of victims withgreat satisfaction. The tears of Israelileaders are crocodile tears, and theirclaims that they are sorry for the tragicdevelopments in Gaza are merehypocrisy. The bloody confrontationswere predictable, and the Israeli-USresponsibility and active involvement arecrystal clear.

Many Israeli journalists are analyzing Israel'sresponsibility as indirect: "1.4 million peopleclosed in a small territory like Gaza, withoutany possibility to have normal economic life,but also without the possibility of escape, aredoomed to kill each other… like mice closedin a box." That zoological explanation is notonly typically racist, but also based on a hugeunderstatement. For, the Israeli and US role inthe present confrontations was much morethan simply "creating the conditions" for aninner-Palestinian conflict.

For months, the US State Department hasbeen pushing the Fatah leadership to launcha military offensive against Hamas, and twoweeks ago, Israel was giving a green light tothe entry of huge quantity of arms for Fatahmilitias in Gaza. In that sense, the Israeli partin the present situation is not onlyconjectural, but an active role.

Who is the Aggressor?

"Hamas is taking over," "A Hamas coup d'etat"-these are some of the headlines from theIsraeli newspapers in the last days, repeatingthe big lies of the Tel Aviv and Washingtonadministrations. It appears that there is aneed to make clear what should be obvious:Hamas smashed Fatah in the last Palestinianelections, after an electoral process that thewhole international community, includingWashington, hailed as "the most democraticever in the Middle East." Unquestionabledemocratic process and massive popularsupport, few regimes can claim suchlegitimacy.

Despite their huge victory, Hamas acceptedto share the power with Fatah in a nationalunity government formed under the hospicesof Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and hailed by theentire international community, with the

exception of Washington and Israel. Thepolitical platform of the new governmentgave de facto recognition the State of Israeland endorsed the strategy of peacefulnegotiations, based on the mechanism ofOslo.

The priority of the new government was todeal with the burning domestic issues-economic improvement, restoration of lawand order in Gaza, fighting the endemiccorruption of the old Fatah-ledadministration-while allowing PresidentMahmoud Abbas and the PLO to continuethe negotiation process, if and when Israelwould accept to renew it.

Hamas' moderate government platform,however, was confronted by two powerfulenemies: a segment of the Fatah cadres whoare not ready to renounce their monopoly inthe political power, and the materialprivileges connected to that monopoly, andthe US-Israeli neoconservative governments,which are conducting a global crusadeagainst political Islam. Muhammad Dahlan,former Preventive Security chief and presentSecurity Adviser of Mahmoud Abbasrepresent both: they are the executioners ofWashington's plans in the Palestinianleadership, as well as the representatives ofthose corrupt Fatah leaders who are ready todo everything in order not to lose theireconomic resources.

Since the electoral victory of Hamas, Dahlan'smilitia has been provoking the government,attacking Hamas militias and refusing to letthe government control the Palestinian policeforces. Despite Dahlan's aggression, Hamashas been doing its best to reach anagreement with Dahlan, asking its ownactivists to refrain from counter-violence.However, when it became clear that Dahlanwas not looking for a compromise, butindeed attempting to liquidate Hamas, theIslamic organization had no alternative but todefend itself and fight back.

The Algerian Model

The US-Israeli plan is part of a global strategyaimed at imposing governments which areloyal to their interests, against the will of thelocal population. Algeria provides an exampleof such a strategy, but also of its failure andits colossal human cost: the unquestionableelectoral victory of the FIS (Islamic SalvationFront) over the corrupted and discreditedFLN, in 1991, was followed by a coup d'etat,supported by France and the US, whichpaved the way for a civil war that lasted formore than a decade and provoked more thanone hundred thousand civilian victims.

Hamas has clearly learned from the Algeriantragedy, and decided not to let Dahlan's planssucceed in his attempt to take power byforce. Enjoying the support of the majority ofthe local population, Hamas militantssmashed Fatah in less than two days, despitethe arms supplied, indirectly, by Israel: acorrupt militia without any popular supportcould not face a relatively disciplined andhighly motivated organization.

Even after its smashing victory on Fatah,Hamas leadership has reiterated its intentionto keep a national unity government and notto exploit the failed coup d'etat of Fatah as apretext to eradicate the organization or toexclude it from the government. Fatahleadership, however, decided to cut any kindof relation with Hamas, and to establish agovernment without Hamas… in the WestBank. Another dream of Ariel Sharon isbecoming a reality: total separation betweenthe West Bank and Gaza, the later beingconsidered a hopeless "Hamastan," a terroristentity in which there are no civilians, but onlyterrorists which can be put under a total stateof siege, and doomed to starvation.

Washington, which fully endorses this policy,promised its full support to Mahmoud Abbasand his new Bantustan in the West Bank, andEhud Olmert decided to release some of the

Palestine

The Crisis in Gaza:Made in IsraelNot a Civil War

Michel Warschawski

Palestinian money that is in the Israeligovernment hands.

Not a Civil War

One of the Israeli and US administrations'objectives failed however: there is no chaosin Gaza. On the contrary. As one Palestiniansecurity officer told Haaretz (17 June): "For avery long time the city has not been quiet. Iprefer the present situation to the previousone. I can, finally, go out from my house…"The eradication of Fatah gangs from Gazamay put an end to a long period of anarchy,and allow for a return to a certain level ofnormal life. The latest events confirmed thatHamas does have the power to impose it.

Israeli talks about a "Palestinian civil war" areno more than wishful thinking. The armedconfrontation was between armed militiaonly, and if, unfortunately, there were civiliancasualties, there were what the US army calls"collateral damage." The population is indeedpolitically divided-in the West Bank as well asin Gaza-but not fighting each other, in themeantime at least.

With Gaza being defined as a hostile entityand its whole population as allied to Hamas,there is no doubt that it will be, in the nearfuture, the target of a brutal Israeliaggression: eventual military incursions,bombardments and starvation.

This is why our top priority, in Israel as well asthroughout the world, is to organizesolidarity with Gaza and its population.

(This article appeared originally atwww.alternativenews.org.)

Michel Warschawski is a journalist and writer and afounder of the Alternative Information Center (AIC) inIsrael. His books include On the Border (South EndPress) and Towards an Open Tomb - the Crisis ofIsraeli Society (Monthly Review Press).


4

the ending of the bombardments and theassassinations perpetrated continuously bythe Israeli army.

A viable perspective for the Palestinianpeople means by the total withdrawal of theIsraeli occupation forces and the evacuationof all the Israeli settlements on Palestinianland. The LCR demands that the EuropeanUnion, and in particular of France, intervenesto stop the Israeli aggression, and beginsagain an honest co-operation with thePalestinian government. By acting this wayFrance and the EU could show a realwillingness to unblock the present tragicsituation in Gaza and the West Bank.

15 June 2007

The Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire is theFrench Section of the Fourth International.

The LCR condemns the fratricidalconfrontations between the Palestinianarmed forces. The Western governmentscreated the conditions for this catastrophe:boycott of the Palestinian governments as aresult of the Hamas victory in the 2006elections and a murderous embargo aimed atthe population under the pretext that Hamasis in a majority.

The announcement of new elections will notchange anything with the current situation ofchaos. The LCR calls for ending of fratricidalcombat. The LCR rejects the proposal to sendan international military force into Gaza. Itwould only be used to crush the Palestinianresistance.

The only way out of the crisis is the re-establishment of the basic rights of thePalestinians, the immediate release of all theprisoners, freedom to travel and work, and

Palestine

Gaza - Stop inter-Palestinian fightingLCR

The confrontations between Palestinians in Gaza are the direct consequence of theIsraeli occupation and the transformation of the Gaza Strip into a ghetto. Locked up,hungry, without work and freedom of travel and without vital resources, thepopulation is constantly harassed and threatened by murderous Israeli incursions andbombardment.

They were surprised to be accompanied byarmed goons in the hire of a local mayor. Halfway across, these men ordered the ferrymanto stop, confiscated the ballot papers atgunpoint and began to fill them in with thename of their candidate. Only heavy wavesforced them to stop and continue in a houseon the island. Voters in the precinctsconcerned never saw a ballot paper.

All 252 seats in the House of Representativesare up for re-election. Most are elected inconstituencies, and Arroyo is fairly sure ofwinning a majority by hook or by crook. But20 per cent are allocated to party lists, byproportional representation. Previously usedmainly by radical left groups unable tocompete financially in the constituencies, thiselection has seen a flurry of government-inspired 'parties' take part. The votes of thereally independent party lists are particularlyvulnerable to fraud, and they have to try andphysically protect their votes up to the timeof the proclamation of the results.

In Mindanao, the radical left party list AnakMindanao (Amin), which fights for peaceand cooperation between the 'tri-people' ofthe island (Muslim Moros, indigenouspeoples, Christian settlers and theirdescendants), and which has at present oneCongressman, is having to combatwidespread fraud. Votes in its bastions arebeing attributed to government-sponsoredparty lists that no one in Mindanao has heardof - including a Manila-based listof…tricycle drivers.


5

This has nothing to do with inefficiency andeverything to do with ballot-rigging. ThePhilippines is one of the most corrupt'democracies' in the world.

During the 2004 presidential election, thevictory of President Gloria MacapagalArroyo was widely attributed to large-scalefraud.

A tape was massively circulated of aconversation between the President andVirgilio Garcillano, head of Comelec, thenational election commission. Arroyo washeard addressing him familiarly, 'HelloGarci', and the election chief proudly assuredher that he would guarantee her a million-vote majority.

The diffusion of the tape led to widespreadprotests and attempts to impeach Arroyo,which failed because the opposition wasunable to secure the necessary number ofvotes in Congress.

One of the things at stake in these elections isto prevent the opposition winning enoughseats to change that. That would require it towin eight of the twelve (out of twenty-four)Senate seats that are up for re-election.

It is not looking good for Arroyo. Currentestimates of the votes counted give the pro-Arroyo Team Unity (TU) just two seats, witheight going to the Genuine Opposition (GO)slate, and two to independents. At least one ofthese, retired army officer and serial coupplotter Gregorio 'Gringo' Honasan, is nofriend of Arroyo. He is currently awaitingtrial for an alleged coup attempt last year.

Fraud occurs throughout the country, aselections take place under the sway of 'guns,goons and gold'. By intimidation and/orbribery, the contents of ballot boxes arechanged. Some candidates' votes are 'shaved'(reduced), others are 'padded' (increased).Indeed in some particularly blatant cases, noactual voting takes place. Ballots are filled inwith the names of the appropriate candidateby the local warlord or corrupt village chiefand handed over to the election authorities.

But much of the fraud is concentrated in thesouthern island of Mindanao, the secondbiggest in the Philippines. Mindanao and theadjacent islands have been the scene ofarmed conflict for more than thirty years. Theresulting instability largely favours election-rigging. Populations have been displaced;accurate records of the number of voters areunavailable or intentionally concealed. Theheavy presence of the army and police (two-thirds of the Philippine armed forces areconcentrated in Mindanao) does nothing toguarantee fair elections, quite the contrary.

At present, counting still has to begin inseven provinces of Mindanao. This is acommon feature of Philippine elections, andthese late counts are used to 'adjust' theoverall results and increase the votes of pro-government candidates.

A glance at the country's main newspaper, thePhilippine Daily Inquirer, provides dailyevidence of cheating. One of the mostpicturesque concerns the island province ofBasilan, off the coast of Mindanao. Teachersassigned to supervise the elections weretaking ballot papers over in a motor boat.

Philippines

Padding and shavingMammoth electoral fraud in Philippines elections

Clara Maria Sanchez

Nearly three weeks after election day, there are still nodefinitive results for the Philippine elections to theSenate and House of Representatives. Counting is stillcontinuing and in a number of provinces it has not evenbegun.


6

because there are even fewer options forthem to return to the country, whose economyis bankrupt and corrupt.

This dramatic increase in labour migrationhas created a large population of trans-national migrant families. Thousands ofchildren now grow up apart from one or bothparents, as the parents are forced to workoutside the country in order to send theirchildren to school, give them access toquality health care, or, in some cases, justprovide them with enough food.

The Feminization of the Export ofHuman Labour

Philippine labour migration has a woman'sface. According to the Philippine OverseasEmployment Administration (POEA), in2003, more than 70% of the total number ofworkers abroad were women. Most of themare between 25-29 years old. Womenmigrants live and work in more than 192countries. They work as professional andtechnical employees, nurses, clerical andsales workers, entertainers, caregivers, anddomestic workers. Many are employed in

The aggressiveness of this human tradingwas even shown during the wars in Lebanonand Iraq when President Arroyo announcedthat she was sending more "supermaids" toMiddle East countries, while othergovernments were sending rescue vehiclesfor their citizens living in these countries.

According to Philippine economic indicators,the remittances of Overseas Filipino Workers(OFWs) exceed foreign direct investment inthe country. Remittances per annum amountto about US$12-14 billion, which onlyincludes those working legally abroad,whereas many OFWs working in domesticand other service work are undocumented.

The Philippine government relies heavily onthe remittances the OFWs send to theirfamilies to compensate for the lack ofspending on social services such as healthand education, to boost domesticconsumption and to cover its yearly budgetdeficits. And the sad truth is that the incomefrom the labour migration business is mostlyspent in this way and not on productiveinvestments, which means that the migrantworkers will work forever abroad, in orderthat their families can simply survive and

Philippines

Exporting domestic labour - the Philippines' participation in globalisation?Development or devastation?

Eva Olaer Ferraren

The present administration of President Gloria Arroyo hasbasically opted for the institutionalization of labour migrationas a central measure to counter the economic crisis in thecountry due to the effects of neo-liberal policies. It is also themost profitable way of global trading, with less capitalinvestment and risks on the part of the sending country and theexpectation of high returns in the form of remittances. Humanresources are now the primary commodities for export; andmost of the labour deployed is female, to respond to labourdemands in the advanced countries, such as domestic work,taking care of the aging population and other human service-related work.

jobs which have traditionally beenundertaken by women.

Most of these women migrants who work inthe service and domestic sectors leavefamilies behind and their children are takencare of by their parents, male partners, orrelatives. The function of reproduction oflabour that was performed by migrant womenis passed on to their male partners andwomen relatives.

The paradox of this feminization of migrantlabour is that the women who have left thisreproductive function in their own family tojoin the global working force are stillperforming the same function for families inFirst World countries. The effects of thefeminization of labour migration on thefamilies of the migrant women from poorcountries demonstrate how the globaleconomy is structured to benefit the richcountries of the world.

The migrant women who work in domestichouseholds in the countries of Europe, theMiddle East, US and Asia are mostlyundocumented and are basically denied theirrights as workers and human beings. The

worst cases are encountered in Middle Eastcountries where these undocumenteddomestic workers are locked up in the housesof their employers, treated inhumanely andsometimes even killed. An increasing numberof migrant women are victims of sexualabuse, trafficking, and prostitution. Despitethe reports of these abuses many Filipinawomen still migrate and work in thesecountries, putting their chances of survival atthe mercy of their employers.

Most of the migrant women's families are runby their male partners. Research shows thatthe spending habits of the family increase -shopping sprees, spending more on luxuriousitems and other non-essential buying.Consumerist practices have becomeprevalent among migrant families and so theybecome a target for commercial capital.

In its discourse about labour migration, thePhilippine government proudly makes theOFWs the country's new heroes, becausethey salvage the dwindling economy andsacrifice themselves as victims of this globalcapitalism. However, the remittances of theOFWs have only benefited the state, becauseof its cuts in social service spending, andglobal capitalists because they can easilydump their goods and commodities on ThirdWorld countries whose economies have beenliberalized.

OFW Remittances: Do theycompensate the social costs of

migration?

The most often-used argument in favour oflabour migration is that remittances play anextraordinary role in the economies of manydeveloping countries, far more importantthan official development assistance or eventhe country's foreign direct investment.Worldwide, remittances are estimated atabout US $167 billion per year, andapproximately 60 percent of this sum goes todeveloping countries. Remittance estimatesare imprecise, however, because remittancesoften move through private, unrecorded

channels. Yes, the Philippines has annualOFW remittances of 12-14 billion US dollars,excluding the non-formal channels, and NOthat does not compensate for the social costsof migration and the development of thecountry. Despite this enormous amount ofremittance or cash inflow, labour migrationdoes not significantly improve thedevelopment prospects of the country oforigin. The Philippines have had greatdifficulty in converting remittance incomeinto sustainable productive capacity. Inaddition, most Third World countries are ableto exercise little control over the compositionof their labour exports-rather, they aredetermined by foreign labour markets, andmay bear no relation to "surplus" labour athome. The Philippines has focused quitedeliberately on "producing" skilled labour forforeign markets, but remains passive in theface of international supply and demand.

As we have said, remittance income is rarelyused for productive purposes. Remittances goin small amounts to poor people (the averagesize of a transfer from the US or Europe tothe Philippines is about $200 or €150 permonth), and are used mostly to support directconsumption and spending on housing,healthcare, and education.

Only a very small proportion of remittedfunds seem to go into income-earning, job-creating investment and property acquisition.Remittances may not constitute a rising tidethat raises all boats, but they do have a veryimportant effect on the standard of living ofthe households that receive them,constituting a significant portion ofhousehold income. They represent the mostimportant social safety net of poor families,especially in times of disasters or difficulttimes. Far from being productive, remittancesincrease inequality, encourage consumptionof imports, increases domestic prices foreducation and health and create dependency.Other than that, the real value of money hasbeen reduced, given the fact that foreignexchange rates are too low for weakcurrencies and also because of the costs

incurred in transferring money. Thus,remittances increase the profits of foreignbanks and have led to the proliferation ofmoney transfer and exchange businesses.Much more money goes to the financialmarkets and on consumer spending than onproductive investments that could enhancelabour productivity and sustainabledevelopment.

Aside from the economic aspects, labourmigration affects families. It has contributedto the malfunctioning of family structures.Cases of marital infidelity and juveniledelinquency are prevalent among migrantfamilies and a relationship of dependency onthe migrants is created.

Conclusion: Migration andGlobalization: who are the servants

of the global economy?

Migrant women work around the clocktaking care of the families of the workers ofglobal companies. Global capitalists are theprincipal beneficiaries of the labour ofmigrant women in the domestic households,because they do not have to pay for thereproduction of the labour force. This isespecially the case with undocumentedmigrants, whose monetary compensation islow and who have no social benefits - healthcare, sick pay, retirement pensions, paidholidays.

For a long time invisible, undocumentedworkers are now organising in manycountries. The movement of the 'sans papiers'in France began over ten years ago. Morerecently there have been demonstrations inthe US and Britain. In the Netherlands acampaign is underway for the recognition ofoverwhelmingly female domestic labour asreal work and for the regularization ofmigrant domestic workers. It is vital thatthese workers receive the full support of theleft and the workers movement.

Eva Olaer is Executive Director of Stichting SumpayMindanao International.


7

Philippines


8

"And now the few hours havepassed, indeed". Precisely. "Andyes, in sum I spoke of myrelationship with RifondazioneComunista. A relationship that,unhappily, is broken" Broken? It'sa rather vague term, Mr Deputy."I mean that so far as I amconcerned, I consider that theexperience of Rifondazione hascome to its end, that it is over.Naturally, I should in any casediscuss that with the comradesof my current…". The "CriticalLeft". "In September we will holdour first national conference".

These words and projects couldbe a harsh blow for his party.

"Look, to be sincere, myrelationship with the party hasalready profoundly changedfollowing the expulsion ofsenator Turigliatto." It wasindeed known… "I no longerparticipated, in reality, in the lifeof the party. I did not take part inits leadership and I was outsideof the everyday life of theparliamentary group."

And then on Saturday he foundhimself at the head of ademonstration.

"What I saw, and what I felt, itconfirmed what I hadexperienced… " He tries toexplain. "While me and othercomrades of Rifondazione werein this magnificentdemonstration of themovement, which had nothingto do with these fifty hooligans,this gang... the leadership of theparty was on the contraryisolated, terribly isolated, at thePiazza del Popolo" The scene waseloquent, he says. "I know it. Isent one of my comrades to see.Giordano [secretary of the PRC]was surrounded by a few dozenpeople. The truth is that, thisSaturday, under a photographic,plastic, mode we have beenconfronted with the bankruptcy

of the political line ofRifondazione."

In what does it consist? "To beboth in the struggle and in thegovernment. You see, it is anunwritten rule of Italianpolitics…" Which? "You cannotbe at the same time in thegovernment and in themovement. In Italy such anoperation cannot succeed. AndRifondazione, not by chance, hasfor several months no longersucceeded in speaking with themovements in struggle, with theworkers… "

You are thinking of the chillywelcome that the workers atMirafiori [Fiat] gave a few daysago to Franco Giordano and tothe minister Paolo Ferrero."Completely. It was a terrible day.If your comrades, your electorateno longer recognises you, thatmeans that you have failed."

Who is responsible for thispolicy? "All of the leadinggroup". Can you be moreprecise? "Fausto Bertinotti."What are the errors he hascommitted? "Two. Above all hehas underestimated the realrelationship of forces in thiscountry. He was convinced onthe eve of the elections that thecentre-left was going to sweepall before it whereas we said thatwe would see a substantialequilibrium." Then? "He believedthat mass mobilisations wouldcondition the activity of thegovernment. But on thecontrary, he did not want toknow what we had succeeded inbuilding in the north east,against the US base in Vicenza".

Some in the party begin to thinkthat proposing Bertinotti for thepresidency of the Chamber ofDeputies was a strategic error."This was an error. Sensational.Inane. I said so immediately. ButI remember that a number of

Italy

Cannavò's farewell "The PRC is finished and other comrades will come with me"

Fabrizio Roncone

Rome. On Saturday afternoon the honourable deputySalvatore Cannavò, at the head of the demonstrationprotesting against George W. Bush, said something like: "I havea letter in my pocket but I still want to wait a few hours…"

And today, how do you prefer todefine yourself? "Write that I wasand I remain a Communist."

APPENDIX - Article bythe Italian press agency

ANSA

According toCannavò, the left's

break with themovements is

irreversible

Rome, June 11.

"The governmental left hasbroken in an irreversible mannerits relationship with themovements. What happened onJune 9 is only the consequenceof a situation which hasdeveloped for several years, evenbefore the government inside ofwhich they have made so manyerrors".

Thus Salvatore Cannavò,spokesperson of the Critical Left,drew the balance sheet of thesituation of the parties of theradical left after the flop of theirinitiative at the Piazza delPopolo.

"The fundamental project of thePRC has failed. The problemrelates as much to the politicalline as to the inadequate leadinggroup".

For Cannavò "the archipelago ofthe governmental left wascrushed by the strategic pactmade with the DemocraticParty".

The spokesperson of the CriticalLeft also said that he had sent aletter to the leadership of theparty to announce "thesuspension of the financing ofthe party". "Some days ago theylet me know verbally that they

comrades smiled, looked at mewith an air of self-importance, asif something obvious had eludedme, as if I didn't understand ".

And you say that now betweenRifondazione and the movementthere is a fracture. "Think aboutit, if the leaders of Rifondazionehad the slightest perception ofreality, they would immediatelycall a special congress." Theprofessor Massimo Cacciariargues that Rifondazione hasnow become a weight for theOlive Tree. "You've noticed it?Cacciari notices thatRifondazione is in difficulties andhe attacks it. But them, no. Theyare trying to resolve the problemof their weakness by allying withother weak forces. With theGreens, with the PdCI,[1] withthe Mussiani?[2] Do you knowwhere that will end up?" No,where? "They will become anexternal current of theDemocratic Party."

And you, on the other hand?"What about us?" What do youexpect to bring fromRifondazione? And to do what?"We will see in September, at ournational conference."

On Saturday, on thedemonstration, there were atleast fifty thousand people."Stop there! What you are sayingis a trap… We didn't organisethis demonstration to found aparty".

And what will you do now in theChamber? "You want to knowhow I'm going to vote?" At least." I will decide case by case. Andto be better understood: I willfight so that the proposedBersani legislation, onliberalisation, cannot pass if it isnot changed." You are truly afighter. "I am coherent. Therewas a time, you know, whencoherence was a value insideRifondazione."


9

had suspended the financing ofthe tendency because it wasnow external to the party andbecause it participated in the NoWar demonstration, against thewar. Flavia D'Angeli asked forexplanations inside theleadership of the PRC butobtained no response. so Idecided to suspend my financingof the party. I will henceforthpay my share into a specialaccount, separate from mine,awaiting clarification."

When asked if his link with thePRC was now definitively broken,the PRC deputy responded: "Ifthere was only me, SalvatoreCannavò, the relation wouldalready be broken, but I cannottake such a responsibilitywithout the decision of thewhole of the Critical Left. Inautumn we will hold a nationalconference at which we willdecide what to do ".

ANSA is the main Italian press agency.

Fabrizio Roncone is a journalist forCorriera della Serra

NOTES

[1] 1. The Party of Italian Communists(PdCI) emerged from a right split from thePRC, in 1998, when the majority of thePRC decided to withdraw its support fromthe first government of Romano Prodi.Then Armando Cossutta, one of thehistoric leaders of Rifondazione, split tosupport the government of D'Alema.

[2] 2. The term Mussiani - from the nameof Fabio Mussa - refers to the smallminority of Left Democrats which did notaccept the foundation of the DemocraticParty with the other components of theOlive Tree. In relation to thereorganisation of the Italian left, see. IVno 388, April 2007.

This is how the correspondent ofthe radio station RFI describedthe two initiatives: "'Bush! Bush!Bush! Out!' 'No Bush-No War!'.Thousands of global justiceactivists and sympathizers of thefar left, from all over Italy,shouted these slogansthroughout the anti-Bushdemonstration which started atEsedra Square, close to theTermini central station, andended at Navone Square in theheart of the Eternal City, not farfrom the Square of the Peoplewhere there took place, withoutmuch of a crowd present, a realmusical happening in favour ofpeace, organized by the radicalwing of the left parties who arein the government". The twophotographs which wereproduce here give a better ideathan long speeches of theimpact of the two initiatives.

For the Italian social movementsand for the Left, a watershedclearly appeared on SaturdayJune 9, 2007. Several undeniablefacts make it possible to affirmthis. First of all, the largedemonstration which went fromEsedra Square to NavonaSquare; the figure of 12 000demonstrators given out by thePrefecture of Police makes nosense, because in order tocontradict it, it is enough just toknow that when the head of thedemonstration was in VeneziaSquare, the tail was only turninginto Via Cavour, which meansthat there were between 80,000and 100,000 demonstrators, ifnot more. And on the otherhand the flop, in every sense ofthe term, of what took place inthe Square of the People.

Then there were theconfrontations with the police,whose scale was excessivelyinflated, well beyond theirmodest dimensions, whereasnobody wanted to remark theability of the demonstration todefend itself and to continue asplanned to Navona Square inspite of the clouds of teargas,the clashes and the"revolutionary aestheticism".From this day there emergethree fundamental aspects.

First of all, we succeeded in theobjective that we fixed at theassembly of the Critical Left onApril 15 in Rome, when wedecided to build a socialopposition and to do it in totalopposition to the government.The demonstration really openedup a space of action for themovement and re-launched theprocess of mobilization againstthe war. There is a continuity inideas and in on the ground withthe mobilization of February 17in Vicenza,[1] and it is not anaccident that in thedemonstration you could not failto see the compact and activepresence of the "No Dal Molin"committees. The dynamic of themovement was confirmed, even"excessively" by the massivepresence of participants outsideof the organized forces whichhad sponsored thedemonstration and which madeup the core of it. Their presencearound the organisedcontingents was important, theywere not afraid, and they gaveconfidence to thedemonstration, to its platform,without even imagining orintending to try and link the two

squares or to go from one to theother. It was a demonstrationagainst the war, "with no 'ifs' andno 'buts'", so it was ademonstration against Prodi andagainst those who were so fewto assemble in the Square of thePeople.

The Critical Left played animportant part in this dynamic,just as it did at the time of theevents of February 21, when itvoted against the Prodigovernment, provoking the"Turigliatto case"[2] This choice,which seemed at the time to beisolated, contributed toreopening the debate, made itpossible to build a polarizationand thus to offer everyone aspace for action, a space thatwas gradually occupied, leadingto the success of the June 9demonstration. It is difficult toforesee how this space will beoccupied in the future. For themoment we can only note thatan energy has been awakened,after a year of torpor, and thatchoices will have to be madesuch as, for example, going backto Vicenza in order to block theconstruction of the base there.And that will have to be the firstnational initiative after June 9.

We then move on, obviously, tomore political elements. First ofall, it is the first time that the leftopposition to the Prodigovernment has been visible. Anopposition linked to a precisecontent - the war - very directand which cannot begeneralised, but in any event anopposition which, and it is noaccident, was situated outside -if not against - the governmental

Italy

The Watershed ofJune 9 Sinistra Critica

On April 15, during an assembly of a thousand activists in Rome, in the presence of manyrepresentatives of different social movements, Sinistra Critica (the Critical Left) took the decisionto organize on June 9 a demonstration in Rome against the war, on the occasion of the visit ofUS President George Bush. The governmental Left - the majority of the leadership of the Partyof Communist Refounding (PRC), the Party of Italian Communists (PdCI), the Greens, etc. -instead of joining this demonstration took a decision to hold on the same day a rally-cum-concert.


10

Italy

Left. Precisely, the governmentalLeft! This element helps tocounterbalance, even though itis still in an insufficient andlimited way, the offensive of theRight, which has importantrepercussions in the front of theCentre-left.

The reasons for thedemonstration were, besides,absolutely confirmed at the endof the meeting between Prodiand Bush. We saw the full andcomplete confirmation of thealliance with the United States,the confirmation of theengagement in Afghanistan,Lebanon and in Kosovo, thereaffirmation of the continuityof the foreign policy conductedby Berlusconi and, as Prodiaffirmed at the press conference,"a shared conception of thefuture destinies of the world".The government committeditself even more to the war andthe immediate decision in favourof the US base in Vicenzarepresents the first concreteexpression of this. On thisterrain, the contradictions willcontinue to develop.

The third aspect is therelationship between thedifferent lefts, the comparisonbetween the two squares andthe developments which resultfrom this. On this terrain noambiguity is possible. There wasa united mass demonstration.And then there was a Square ofthe People without the people.An operation from on high inwhich, unfortunately, importantorganizations allowedthemselves to be involved, in thefirst place the FIOM.[3] Theseorganisations wanted tomaintain a protest withoutcausing any problems for thegovernment. The bankruptcy ofthe Square of the People is thebankruptcy of the line of the"party of struggles and ofgovernment" and the moregeneral bankruptcy of theposition that came out of Venicecongress concerning the Party ofCommunist Refounding (PRC),[4]a position which has reached theend of the road. There is nomediation possible between thestruggles and the government,nor any possibility of building

"bridges" between these twodynamics. It is this reality whichis feeding the whole crisis of thePRC and the other parties to theleft of the Democratic Party, whohave chosen to come together inorder to mask the state ofweakness in which they findthemselves.

The absence of the PRC fromNavona Square demonstrateswhere this party has ended up. Ithas reached a point from whichthere is no longer any possiblereturn. This is combined with aruinous line and a blind andincapable leading group, whichhas led it into this dead-end,which it is now so difficult to getout of.

We cannot foresee what willcome out of this 9 June, but it iscertain that we have created thenecessary conditions for a lessfragmented course for thealternative Left, for theopposition Left. The networks,associations and organizationsthat represent this Left have

started to define both whatmakes their unity and whatcontrasts there are - andwhoever says that the projectthat unites them is that of a"small party against the PRC", hasquite simply not understoodanything: there is a social baseto be developed (but the partiesof the governmental left do notdo any better). It is certain that ifall that produced in return aneffect on social questions, suchas pensions or job insecurity forexample, we would see a realmodification of the relationshipof forces between themovements and thegovernment, between themovements and the institutions,in other words, in the society.

As far as we are concerned, thispolitical year has been dense inevents and successive key dates.We set up the Critical LeftAssociation, then wedeterminedly turned ourselvestowards the movement byproposing the Forum for SocialOpposition, which we are re-

launching. Something hasappeared. And even, for the firsttime really in the June 9demonstration, you could seethe capacity of the Critical Left toprovide organization andinitiative, to present itself as ameans of resisting the crisis ofthe PRC and the "radical" left ingeneral. There is no doubt thatthis is the road on which wehave to continue, with evengreater determination andspeed.

The first National Conference ofthe Critical Left, which we willhold after the summer, willrepresent an important momentin this process.

The Sinistra Critica (Critical Left)Association (ASC) was set up inJanuary 2007 by the minority ofthe Party of CommunistRefounding (PRC) which refusedthe participation of the party inthe Prodi government. Themembers of the FourthInternational in Italy form part ofthis association, which regroupsmembers both inside andoutside the PRC. This documentis the first balance sheet of June9, produced by the nationaloperational group of the ASCand published on June 11, 2007on its web site:www.sinistracritica.org.

NOTES

[1] On February 17 in Vicenza, tens ofthousands of people demonstrated againstthe construction of a new US military basein the suburb of Dal Molin, which hadbeen decided on by the centre-leftgovernment of Romano Prodi.

[2] Franco Turigliatto was expelled fromthe PRC for having voted in the Senateagainst the war in Afghanistan. A massivemovement of solidarity against hisexpulsion developed in Italy. See thearticles in International Viewpoint 387and 388, March and April 2007.

[3] The FIOM, the strongest union in Italy,is the Federation of the Metal Industry ofthe General Confederation of ItalianLabour (CGIL). Its leadership is more tothe left than the CGIL's.

[4] The PRC held is Fifth Congress inVenice in March 2005. See SalvatoreCannavo, "The challenge of the anti-capitalist Left", International Viewpoint366, April 2005.


11

1) Remarks on the history ofour discussions on strategicquestions.

The history of the discussions onstrategic questions in the LCR ismarked by two stages. The first,in the period after May [1968]and up until the end of the1970s, was favoured by the pre-revolutionary situations inSouthern Europe. The secondwas rather characterized by anabsence of discussion. In thisfirst phase, the debates of the1920s in the CommunistInternational, but also a series ofdiscussions aroundrevolutionary experiences, weregone over again. May '68 hadbeen analyzed as a dressrehearsal, following the exampleof the relationship between therevolutions of 1905 and 1917,but our analysis was neverreduced to Russian questions. Inthe 1970s we distinguished thespecificities of the RussianRevolution from those of therevolutions in Europe and LatinAmerica. The League's cadreschools, in particular under theinfluence of Ernest Mandel,were centred on Germany, Italy,Spain, Chile. These strategicdiscussions were in directconnection with an analysis ofthe period that was marked, aswe saw it at the time, by a newconjunctural actuality of the

revolution. Pre-revolutionarysituations were foreseen inEurope in the coming four orfive years. The strategy of armedstruggle in Latin America wasadopted, with a perspective oftaking power in the short-term incountries like Bolivia andArgentina. For some comrades,even, "history was snapping atour heels".

The inversion of the period, atthe end of the 1970s and thebeginning of the 1980s, withrevolutionary perspectivesreceding, put an end to thesediscussions, except for someincursions in the cadre schoolsof the years 1986-87.

The Manifesto of 1992, forexample, remained silent onthese questions. "Because theWall had come down", it wasnecessary to go back over ourhistory - the history of theRussian Revolution and theStalinist degeneration - and tobring our fundamental ideas upto date. It was a question ofpriorities. But we were losingthe thread of the strategicdiscussion. The difference isclear between the Manifesto of1992 and the Manifesto of 2005which took up, even in a modestway, some strategic points. Thatraises a first question. Strategicproblems can obviously not be

dealt with in an identical way indifferent periods, it depends onwhether the revolutionary waveis rising or ebbing. The strategicdiscussions of the 1920s - whenthe revolution was on the risefollowing the Russian revolution- and those of the 1930s -revolutionary reactions facedwith the rise of fascism - weredifferent. The approach tostrategic problems during theshort century - 1914-1991 - wasnot the same as at the presenttime. Revolutionary Marxists,over and above thecharacterizations and theconcepts covering the Stalinistphenomenon, modified many oftheir strategic approachesfollowing the bureaucraticcounter-revolution. Therelationship of forces betweenthe classes, the changes incapitalism and the modificationswithin the working class, thecollapse of Stalinism, the social-liberal evolution of socialdemocracy, the emergence ofnew social movements like theglobal justice movement, all thatmodifies the framework of andthe approach to strategicquestions.

Should this discussion bereserved only for periods ofrising class struggle orrevolutionary or pre-revolutionary situations, as we

rather tended to think, implicitly,in the League? I do not think so.Over and above the difficultiesor questionings, the question ofthe revolution and the problemswhich are linked to it mustremain at the centre of ourpreoccupations. Let us not forgetthat Trotsky, even though hethought that the Second WorldWar would be transformed intorevolution, wrote theTransitional Programme inSeptember 1938, after the defeatof the German proletariat in1933, the defeat of the Catalanproletariat in 1937 - key date inthe Spanish Civil War - andwhen the French workers'movement was in full retreatafter the betrayals of the PopularFront, before the defeat of thegeneral strike of November1938.

2) Discussion on the concept of"actuality of the revolution"

The concept of "actuality of therevolution" has a doublefunction: conjunctural but alsohistorical. It was operationalduring the period after theRussian revolution and duringthe revolutionary periods of1918-1923 in Germany, 1934-1936 in France, in 1936-1937 inSpain, the post-warrevolutionary situations andthose of the 1960s and 1970s,

Marxist Theory

Elements of revolutionary strategyFrançois Sabado

Introduction

This article is an edited version of a report given at a cadre school forcomrades with national responsibilities in the LCR. It aims to bring up todate some key elements of revolutionary strategy in an advanced capitalistcountry. Several working hypotheses are submitted to the discussion.Among these, certain questions deserve to be more thoroughly examined.Others will remain work in progress.

Elements of revolutionary strategy

Even though the relationship of forces on a world scale remains largely unfavourable to the working class, a series of factors areputting a new discussion on strategic questions on the agenda: factors such as the crisis of neo-liberalism, the war in Iraq and thethreats of war in other areas of the world, the social-liberal restructuring of the workers' movement and its contradictions, thediscussion within the left on governmental questions, the depth of the social and political crisis in Latin America, the revolutionaryprocesses in Venezuela and in Bolivia, the discussion initiated by Chavez on the socialism of the 21st century. Strategic questionsare back on the agenda.


12

Marxist

and the colonial revolutions. It isuseful in order to characterizelonger historical periods ofrising class struggle whichencompassed pre-revolutionaryor revolutionary situations.

But when we go back overcertain texts of Marx or certaindocuments of Trotsky, after therevolutionary period ofthe1920s, the question ofrevolutionary perspectives ispresented in a fuller way:

Let us recall this passage ofMarx in the Grundrisse:

"At a certain stage of theirdevelopment, the materialproductive forces of societyenter into contradiction with theexisting relations of production,or, which is only the legalexpression of the same thing,with the relations of propertywithin which they had hithertoevolved. From being the formsof the development of theproductive forces that they were,these relations become obstaclesto it. Then a period of socialrevolution opens up".

In his turn, Ernest Mandel givesthe following explanation of thispassage in his notes on LateCapitalism.

"When we evoke the epoch ofrevolutions that does not at allmean that no furtherdevelopment of the productiveforces would be possible withoutthe fall of this mode ofproduction. It means only that,from this point of view, theproductive forces whichcontinue to develop enter intoincreasingly open rebellion withthe existing mode of productionand contribute to its downfall ".

The revolutionary horizon orperspectives are linked to thereactionary character ofcapitalism, to its internalcontradictions, to the social costof the system of capitalistproperty, to the differencebetween the possibilities of

technological, cultural and socialdevelopment of society and theobstacles that are put in place bythe race for capitalist profit.

It is also for this reason that theepoch of the actuality ofrevolutions or of socialism isrelated to the imperialist phaseof capitalism.

Mandel rejects any mechanicaland catastrophist interpretationof the formulas of Marx.

What Trotsky, following Lenin,developed in the CI in 1926,was: "Can the bourgeoisie obtaina new epoch of capitalistgrowth? To deny such apossibility, to count on a'situation without any way out'for capitalism would simply berevolutionary verbalism"…

And he specified that it wasnecessary to relate thedevelopments of the capitalisteconomy and the cycles of theclass struggle: "Retreats ordefeats also make possible newphases of stabilization or revivalof capitalism", he wrote in TheThird International After Lenin.

It think it is useful for us to havesuch an approach, which takesaccount of the specific analysisof each period, while integratingit into a history which remainsthat of capitalism, itscontradictions, and its possiblerevolutions. That may seembanal, but it is necessary toremember it in a situationcharacterized by the absence ofrevolutions in capitalist Europeover a long period: 23 yearsseparate the revolutionary rise of1944-45 from that of May '68;and there have already beenalmost 38 years between May'68 and 2006. Such periods oftime explain why the thread of astrategic discussion on therevolution gets lost. It is alsouseful to reconsider theseproblems of periodisation.

The "periods of socialrevolution" result, therefore,

war, we spoke only about thetactics of the proletarian party,and this conceptioncorresponded exactly to theparliamentary and trade-unionmethods which then prevailedand which did not go beyond theframework of immediatedemands and tasks. Tactics arelimited to a particular problem.Revolutionary strategy covers awhole combined system ofactions which, in theirinterconnection and theirsuccessive character, as in theirdevelopment, must bring theproletariat to the conquest ofpower".

A "combined system of actions"and the "conquest of power" - itis this tension which makesrevolutionary strategy. We donot work enough on this"combined system of actions"and its relationship togovernmental questions…

We must grasp both ends of thechain: the concrete modalities offormation of an anti-capitalistconsciousness, of a socialistconsciousness, starting from thekey experiences of the classstruggle, and at the other end, apermanent striving towards thefinal goal, the programme andstrategy to reach it, starting fromthe specificities of the socialistrevolution.

We do not know what will be theforms of the revolutions of the21st century, but we are alwaysconfronted with thischaracteristic of the proletarianrevolution: How, from"nothing", to become "all"?

The popular classes can conquerpositions, obtain partial reforms,"seeds of workers' democracywithin bourgeois democracy",but these conquests cannot bemade permanent withoutreplacing the power of thebourgeoisie by the power of theworkers and the majority ofsociety. From which flows thecentral strategic place ofrevolutionary crises, where the

above all "from a time markedby the fundamentalcontradictions of capital". Ourperspectives of revolutionarytransformation come back tothese fundamentalcontradictions. They takeaccount of the specific analysisof each historical period. Theyaccelerate and are sharpenedduring situations where thequestion of power is reallyposed. But this course must bemaintained, whatever the cycles,long or short, of the classstruggle.

3) To come back to theconcepts of revolutionarystrategy

What is a revolutionarystrategy?

The central question of anyrevolutionary strategy remainsthe conquest of political power.Although we approachedstrategic questions through thestudy of revolutionary crises -which was correct -, the Leaguetended to reduce strategy to onlythe moment of the revolutionarycrisis, and even to the politico-military modalities of theconquest of power, in particularby the study of the variousmodels - insurrectionary generalstrike, prolonged war, guerrillawars, debates on the Chinese,Vietnamese and Cuban models -etc. Though it was correct towork on these questions,nevertheless we often had atendency to reduce strategicproblems to a debate overmodels, whereas strategyincludes many dimensions in theconstruction of the revolutionarysubject. This tendency tomodelisation furthermore led usto make mistakes, in particularin Latin America, by adapting togeneralizations of the Cubanmodel by the Castroite currents.

Trotsky gives a more generaldefinition of the strategicproblems in the Criticism of theDraft Programme of the 6thCongress of the IC: "Before the


13

Theory

ruptures occur which modifydurably the relationship offorces and the process offormation of a socialistconsciousness. Unlike in thebourgeois revolutions, where thebourgeoisie had become thedominant class before therevolution, the proletariat canonly become the dominant classafter the conquest of politicalpower.

Lenin had in his time given thefirst indications: the famousconditions of a revolutionarycrisis, developed in Left-wingcommunism, an infantiledisease: "Those on high nolonger can, those below nolonger will, the layers or classesin the middle swing to the side ofthose below, and there is arevolutionary leadership - [in thesense of leadership, party, andclass consciousness, let us add] -to lead the process". And headded, along with Trotsky andthe leaders of the CI in thecapitalist countries of Europe:"It will be much more difficult toconquer power [compared toRussia] and easier to keep it" Hewas speaking about the moredeveloped socio-economic levelof these countries compared toTsarist Russia.

It is in this sense, withoutbuilding models, that ErnestMandel tried to outline atypology of future revolutions,in the notes of his book Latecapitalism: "The future typologyof socialist revolutions in highlyindustrialized countries willprobably more resemble that ofthe revolutionary crises of Spainin the 1930s, of France in 1936and 1968, of Italy in 1948 and1966-70, of Belgium in 1960-61,than the crises of collapse afterthe First World War".

These future revolutions willhave much strongerinterconnections on thecontinental and internationallevel. The relationship between arevolutionary process whichstarts on the national terrain and

its projection on the world arenais much stronger today than inthe past. The internationalcontent - at least in the advancedcapitalist countries - ofrevolutions is more marked. InEurope, that raises the questionof a European strategy or at leastof a European programme.

Lastly, it falls to us toincorporate into the main lines ofa modern revolutionary strategythe lessons of the revolutions ofthe last century. We oftenexplain that we will work for"majority" and "conscious"revolutions. Majority: whichimplies "revolutionary-democratic" processes... so withstrong tensions betweenrevolutionary chaos and "themechanisms of democraticdecisions". Conscious: whichrequires the preparation of therevolutionary rupture by a seriesof confrontations where themasses go through theexperience of the superiority -even partial - of socialistsolutions compared tocapitalism. We never fell into avision of the revolution as theproduct of "the great day", butboth the increasing complexityof societies and the lessons ofrevolutionary experiences mustlead us to get rid of any trace orremains of this type ofconception.

These majority and consciousrevolutions also result from areorganization of the whole ofthe workers' movement. We canon this point take guidance fromsome of the intuitions of Trotsky,put forward in a discussion onthe Transitional Programme withleaders of the American SWP in1938.

He explained that there are threeconditions for a new society:

a) "that the productive forces aresufficiently developed and thatthey enter in contradiction withthe relations of production; b) "aprogressive class that issufficiently strong socially" [the

terrain of class unity andindependence in order to build,under the best conditions, thefuture revolutionary leadership.

Today, without starting out againfrom scratch, by starting fromthe basis of the present-dayreality of the workers'movement, it is thus necessary torebuild practices, organizations,projects of revolutionarytransformation of society, but onthe basis of a series of strategicreference that we have outlinedabove.

4) The transitional approach

This is a weak point in thehistory of the French workers'movement, dominated byJacobinism - the statist pressure -and Stalinism - the negation ofself-emancipation. But it is alsoa weak point in the history of theLCR since May '68. A weaknesswith which Ernest Mandel oftenreproached us, and which was,perhaps, also linked to anapproach that was too centred onthe moment of the revolutionarycrisis, to the detriment of thepreparations for it.

It is through a transitionalapproach that our strategicproblematic must be redeployed.

It integrates immediate demands- compatible with the logic ofcapitalism - and intermediatedemands that are contradictorywith this logic. It combines theforms of day-to-day struggles,which respect bourgeois legality,and mass anti-capitalist actions,which transgress legality. Itrejects the separation between aminimum program and amaximum programme. Arevolutionary strategy issimultaneously a strategy ofwearing down the enemy and ofconfrontation. It comprisesoffensive and defensive periods,phases of retreat and of attack,depending on the class struggle.

This is how Trotsky defined thetransitional problematic: "It is

working class] c) "the thirdcondition is politicalconsciousness ".

We are confronted with a doubledifficulty, objective andsubjective.

Objective, because there is at thesame time, extension of theproletariat on a worldwide scale,but also an increase in theinternal differentiations withinthe working class - technical, ofstatus, gender, nationalities...and a differentiation in classconsciousness, impacted bythese new differentiations of theworking class but also by thebalance sheet of the century, ofrevolutions, by the effects ofStalinism.

It is necessary to rebuild fromfurther back...

The question with which we areconfronted is not only "the crisisof leadership", as Trotskypresented it in the TransitionalProgramme, but an overall crisisof leadership, organization,consciousness, from whichflows the necessity ofreorganizing, of rebuilding theworkers' movement.

It is not a question, as in the1920s and 1930s, of substitutinga revolutionary leadership for areformist, centrist or Stalinistone. All these substitutions werepossible because it was beingdone within the framework ofthe same culture, in a climatemarked by revolutionarydynamics.

The subjective factor is notreduced, today, to the building ofa revolutionary leadership, oreven just to the building of therevolutionary party. There areproblems of experiences,organization, consciousness ofthe mass movement. There is theneed to discuss mediations, todiscuss tactics in order toadvance towards broad anti-capitalist parties, while situatingourselves in each country on the


14

Marxist

necessary to help the masses inthe process of their daily fight tofind the bridge between theircurrent demands and theprogramme of socialistrevolution. This bridge mustconsist of a system oftransitional demands startingfrom the present conditions andconsciousness of broad layers ofthe working class and leadinginvariably to one and the sameconclusion: the conquest ofpower by the proletariat".

Each word has its importance:

v "daily", "immediatedemands", "presentconsciousness". The startingpoint is the immediate demandsof the popular classes.

v "System of transitionaldemands": Trotsky underlinesthe combined character of thedemands.

v "Conquest of politicalpower". The conclusion of theprocess is the revolutionaryrupture.

Mass actions in general aim forthe immediate satisfaction ofneeds. It is thus important thatrevolutionary strategy links tothese needs demands whichcannot be integrated into thecapitalist socio-economic order,but which on the contrary,unleash an anti-capitalistdynamic, which leads to a trialof strength between the twodetermining classes of society.The consciousness of the massescan develop in a revolutionarydirection only if they accumulateexperiences of struggle whichare not limited to partialdemands that are realizablewithin the framework of thecapitalist system. Thisconsciousness also results fromdemands which start fromimmediate needs and raise thequestion of power or ownership.

The following examples canillustrate how to put forwarddemands which respond to the

immediate needs of the massesand pose the question of poweror ownership.

v The question of water and gasin certain countries of LatinAmerica, such as Bolivia, or thequestion of oil in Venezuela,poses all the problems ofnational sovereignty, control andpopular management.

v The question of landoccupations in the countrieswhere land reform is a centralissue: that is today, for example,the case in Brazil. These landoccupations are not, in general,incompatible with the system,but, in the framework of theglobalised capitalist economy,they are incontestably points ofimbalance, points of rupture.

v The taking over and runningby the workers of certaincompanies condemned tobankruptcy by their owners.These experiences are partialand indicate that another kind offunctioning of the economy ispossible, with workers' or socialmanagement. These experimentsare related to exceptionalexperiences of a rise of the massmovement: this is the case offactories abandoned or closed inVenezuela, with a mixed co-management between theworkers and the publicadministration. Theseexperiments of occupation, ofcontrol, of co-management and,under certain conditions, of co-operatives, were one of theexpressions of the pre-revolutionary situation inArgentina in 2001-2002. Theproblem was posed, in a limitedway, by certain experiences ofcontrol or management in the1970s in Italy and France. Itpoints its head in themobilizations at Nestlé or in theshoe industry in Romans.

The transitory step that we mustbuild is also crystallized througha series of demands put forwardin a plan of social anddemocratic emergency

measures: real, serious,immediate measures, but alsowhich also aim at aredistribution of wealth andproposals for a reorganization ofthe economy in function ofsocial needs and not of thecapitalist economy.

v The question of theprohibition of sackings, in theform of a whole series ofproposals or laws which call intoquestion the power, the arbitraryrights of the employers, is one ofthe principal transitionaldemands. It starts from theelementary refusal of sackingand leads to the idea thatincursions into capitalistproperty rights are necessary inorder to implement the demand.

v The refusal of privatizationsimplies not only the return to thepublic sector of all that has beenprivatised by the Right and theLeft, but also a reorganization ofthe public ownership of keysectors of the economy.

This approach must be extendedon a European level...

The starting point of thesedemands is the refusal of theliberal counter-reform and itsmeasures. Their outcome andtheir effectiveness implyconfrontation with the rulingclasses and the capitalist system.There is an organic link betweenanti-liberalism and anti-capitalism. And when youseparate anti-liberalism fromanti-capitalism, you limit therange of even the anti-liberaldemand: that is what happenswith the programmes which onlyattack the excesses of"financialisation" or"commodification" withouttaking into account the overalllogic of capitalist socialrelations. To be a consistent anti-liberal, it is necessary to tacklecapitalist property relations andto pose the problems of publicand social ownership. Thisglobal approach is notultimatistic. It can be

concretized around somedemands which can serve as keypoints, for example, for anelection campaign.

v Behind the system oftransitional demands, what is atstake is this: the accumulation ofsocial experiences whichdestabilize the system, indicateanother possible economic andsocial organization, anddemonstrate the capacities of theworking class from this point ofview. Gramsci deals with thisquestion with his "concept ofpolitico-ethical hegemony". Theoppressed class must conquerpositions within society beforeconquering political power. Ofcourse, in a normal situation,that remains propaganda andexperiences which have alimited scope. But in a situationof social acceleration, it isintegrated during a wholepreparatory period to theconquest of political power.

5) The United Front

The policy of the United Fronthas a double dimension:strategic and tactical.

Strategic, because if therevolution is a majority processand "the emancipation of theworkers, the act of the workersthemselves", the popular classesmust overcome theirdifferentiations and internaldivisions. Social differentiationsrelated to the specific place inthe production process and moregenerally in social life, but alsopolitical divisions related to thehistory of the workers'movement, to the crystallizationof currents and organizations.Their social and politicalunification is one of theconditions of a revolutionarytransformation.

Furthermore, Trotsky indicatesthe roots of the policy of theunited front in this passage onGermany (The GermanRevolution and the Stalinistbureaucracy, 1932): "The


15

Theory

one of the methods of the classstruggle. In these givenconditions, the method iscompletely unusable: it wouldbe foolish to want to build anagreement with the reformistsfor the carrying out of thesocialist revolution" ( Trotsky,How to Defeat Fascism?).

Indeed, as Daniel Bensaïdexplains, "The united frontalways has a tactical aspect. Thereformist organizations are notreformist from confusion,inconsistency or lack of will.They express social and materialcrystallizations... The reformistleaderships can thus be tacticalpolitical allies to contribute tounifying the class. But theyremain strategically potentialenemies. The united front thusaims at creating the conditionsthat make it possible to breakwith these leaderships, at themoment of decisive choices,with the best possiblerelationship of forces, and todetach the broadest possiblemasses from them". (Crisis andstrategy, 1986).

Its conditions of application alsodepend on the globalrelationship of social andpolitical forces, and in particularon the relationship of forceswithin the workers' movement.This is moreover a problemwhich Trotsky posed, in thediscussion with the FrenchCommunists in 1922: "If theCommunist Party onlyrepresents an insignificantminority... its attitude withregard to the class front does nothave decisive importance. Theproblem of the united front doesnot arise when the CP, as inBulgaria, represents the onlypolitical force. But where the CPconstitutes a political forcewithout yet having decisivestrength, where it embracesperhaps a quarter, perhaps a thirdof the proletarian vanguard, thequestion of the united front isposed in all its sharpness".

The question of the united frontis a central question in a countrylike France in 2006, but it is notposed in the same terms before1968, after 1968 or today, withthe social-liberal evolution ofthe workers' movement, thecrisis of the CP and the newspaces for an anti-capitalistpolicy.

6) The general strike

One of the key questions for ourstrategic and tactical orientationconsists of creating theconditions for the directintervention of the workers, ofthe popular classes onto thepolitical and social stage. Toachieve this objective, thegeneral strike represents acentral element of our strategy.

The general strike appeared asthe hypothesis of the overthrowof capitalism, from the end ofthe 19th century. In the firstplace as a surge of working-classenergy, counter-posed by theanarchists to the old tried andtested tactic of social democracy,a tactic linked to the gradualconquest of parliamentarypositions. For the anarchists, itwas a question of counter-posingthe extra-parliamentary massmovement to the parliamentarytactic of social democracy.

Rosa Luxembourg took up againthe perspective of the generalstrike, going beyond theanarchist-Socialist debate, andtrying to link the dynamic of themass movement to politicalperspectives. "The mass strike,the Russian Revolution showedus, is not a clever meansinvented to give more force tothe proletarian struggle. It is theway of the proletarian massmovement, the form of theproletarian struggle in therevolution". Since then, thestrategic hypothesis of the activegeneral strike - the"revolutionary general strike" asour Spanish comrades said in the1970s - remains, in new forms,the most probable variant of the

proletariat reaches revolutionaryawakening not by a scholasticapproach but through the classstruggle, which does not sufferinterruptions. To fight, theproletariat needs the unity of itsranks. That is true both forpartial economic conflicts,within the confines of a anenterprise, and for 'national'political struggles such as thefight against Fascism.Consequently, the united fronttactic is not somethingoccasional and artificial, nor askilful manoeuvre, no, it flowscompletely and entirely from theobjective conditions of thedevelopment of the proletariat ".

Thus the united front responds tothe following strategic objective:to unify the proletariat - theworking class in the broad sense,those who are forced to sell theirlabour power - in the course of arevolutionary process, totransform it from a dominatedclass into the dominant class insociety. To stimulate thisdevelopment, this movementmust create the conditions of"the class independence" of theworkers with respect to thebourgeoisie, and aim at the self-emancipation and the self-organization of the popularclasses, fundamental conditionfor the revolutionarytransformation of society. Thus,while making clear at each stageof the class struggle its contentand its forms, striving for theunity of the workers and theirorganizations is a permanentelement of the politics ofrevolutionaries.

But the policy of the united frontis also a political tactic, whichdepends on the general goals ofrevolutionary politics. Let usrecall that a revolutionary policyis not reduced to the tactic of theunited front. Many other aspectsrelated to the political struggle,the definition of objectives, thedelimitation between currentsand organizations, the buildingof organizations, are essential

links in the activity ofrevolutionaries.

Following from that, tacticsremain subordinate to strategy:"The historical problem is not tomechanically link all theorganizations which remainfrom the various stages of theclass struggle, but to unite theproletariat in the struggle and forthe struggle. These areabsolutely different problems,sometimes even contradictory".(Trotsky, How to DefeatFascism?).

The forms and the content of aunited front tactic can abruptlychange, in particular in crisissituations.

The question of the united fronthas a content, explains Trotsky:"The campaign of the unitedfront must be based on a wellworked out transitionalprogramme, that is to say asystem of transitional demands -with a workers' and peasants'government - which must ensurethe transition to socialism".

However, our whole programmeshould not be a precondition forunity. But that must put us onguard against unity for unity'ssake, unity without content.

In the policy of uniting workersfor struggle, the conflicts withthe reformists can reach pointsof rupture: "If the reformistssabotage the struggle, go againstthe dispositions of the masses,we reserve ourselves the right tosupport the action to the end,without our temporary half-allies, as an independentorganization... In fact it is themasses who decide. From themoment when the massesseparate from the reformistleadership, the agreements loseany meaning. To perpetuate thesingle face would mean not tounderstand the dialectic of therevolutionary struggle and totransform the united front from aspringboard into a barrier. ForMarxists, the united front is only


16

Marxist

which express the force of themass movement, its radicalityand its effectiveness inparalysing the bourgeois state.The recent social explosions orexperiences of pre-revolutionarysituations, once again in LatinAmerica, remind us of theimportance, at times of bigconfrontations between theclasses, of general strikes andmass demonstrations, includinginsurrectionary ones.

Lastly, the "general strike" doesnot by itself resolve the questionof the strategy of conquest ofpower. "It poses the question ofpower, it does not resolve it",said Lenin. For that, it must beaccompanied by forms oforganization and a perspective ofgovernmental power.

7) Self-organization

In the rebuilding of a practice ofself-emancipation, self-organization also has a strategiccharacter.

These structures can appear inthe course of a struggle or astrike, in the form of strugglecommittees or strike committeeselected by general assemblies.

These kinds of structures appearin all pre-revolutionary orrevolutionary periods. Theyemerge in general from concreteproblems or in situations wherethe people try to obtain newinstruments to deal with theorganization of their lives in theworkplaces or in theneighbourhoods. Their namevaries according to the time andplace where they are established:"Soviets", "factory committees "in Russia..., "internalcommissions" in Italy, electionsof workplace delegates inGermany, committees andmilitias in Spain, workers'commissions, shop stewards inEngland, Jap (food supplyjuntas), communal commandos,industrial cordons (local unionsof the CUT trade unions) inChile, workers' commissions

upsurge of the masses againstthe established order.

Today, the relationship of forcesbetween the classes in Europedoes not put the outbreak of suchgeneral strikes on the agenda.But does this specific historicalconjuncture put into question thestrategic hypothesis? None ofthe theses which relativise thestrategic role of general strikesand central demonstrations havebeen verified when the massmovement has gone into action,and the paths taken by it duringcertain pre-revolutionarysituations in Latin America tendrather to give fresh force andvitality to certain traditionalstrategic concepts.

The general strike has severaldimensions: it is not a "big dayof action", it is the framework ofa political movement of theworking class, it makes possibleits independent expression, it hasits organizations - strikecommittees or the central strikecommittee -, it has afunctionality in theconfrontation with the state:paralysis of the economy, of thestrategic axes of transport andcommunications. It creates theframework for re-launchingproduction... In the centralcapitalist countries with a strongworking-class socialcomposition, it is the form parexcellence of the directintervention of the workingclass.

But the preparation of thesegeneral strikes also takes placethrough daily intervention, bypractical proposals forcoordination, centralization ofstruggles, by flexiblepropaganda and agitation tocreate the conditions of broadgeneral movements of theworking class.

We can add to it or combine withit the succession of big massdemonstrations which paralyse acountry, the problem being oneach occasion to find the forms

and residents' committees inPortugal... They can also startout from forms of legalbourgeois institutions in theframework of existinginstitutions: elections ofdelegates, setting-up ofstructures to ensure supplies offood.

In short, the forms of self-organization can be varied andrevolutionaries do not make afetish of this or that form. Whatis essential is the democraticunitary expression of thedynamics of the massmovement, with an objective: tocreate the most directmechanisms of representation ofthe mass movement.

At the beginning of conflicts,this can take the form of a unitedfront of workers' organisationsor else combined forms, but inthe heat of the struggle, there is aneed for structures which mostaccurately represent the realityof the mass movement. Fromthis point of view, althoughAndreu Nin, leader of thePOUM in Spain, was right topropose a "workers' alliance" inthe years 1934-36 as the form ofthe united front of workers'organisations, he was wrong towant to replace the militias andcommittees, products of theinsurrection of July 1936, by theformal unity of theorganizations. Behind thissubstitution, there was adisplacement of the relationshipof forces: the most advancedelements - CNT, POUM,Socialist Left - of the revolutionwent back to being in asubordinate position withrespect to the leaderships of thePCE, the PSOE and therepublican bourgeoisie. It was abackward step.

We should have no formalism,all the more so as the explosionand division of the forms of self-organization are problems thatwe can be confronted with insituations of a rise of the massmovement. That was a major

problem in Argentina between"neighbourhood associations orcommittees" and the "piquetero"movement, between the tradeunions and the "piqueteros":more than 2336 barrages at thehigh point of the movement in2002, involving severalhundreds of thousands of people.The division between partiesalso fragments self-organization.Each party has its massmovement... This is a keyquestion in Bolivia today,between the COB, theassemblies of El Alto, theindigenous movements, but alsoon a lesser scale, in certain socialmobilizations in Europe(examples of co-ordinations,organized around this or thatpolitical organization).

Linked to the problem of unity,there are the problems ofcentralization: when there isdivision, corporatist or socialfragmentation, there cannot becentralization.

What these experiences have incommon is their socialexplosiveness but also theirdeficit of consciousness of theneed for a radical transformationof society, which also hasconsequences for theorganization, the leadership.

Are these structures incapable oftaking power and reorganisingsociety? We do not believe that.

Already the Austro-Marxistswanted to relegate them to"socio-economic" structureswhile leaving power to aparliamentary national assembly.

Others are taking up this thesisTrotsky today in their manner,explaining that "the forms ofself-organization will have tofind their place, without beinginstitutionalized. But, especially,without taking power".

The limits of a revolutionarysituation and the weaknesses oforganization and leadership didnot make possible - except in


17

Theory

created: committees, but alsocommunal or local structures ofthe "red municipalities" or"liberated zones" type. A processof confrontation and duality ofpower develops which alsoinvolves crises, fractures in theold existing institutionalstructures. The old shells caneven become the envelope ofnew powers. That is the exampleof the Paris Commune, wherethe old commune wasregenerated by the energy of thepopular explosion whichconstituted it as an organ ofpopular power. Chile, in theyears 1970-73 with the JAP -juntas for provisioning thepopular neighbourhoods - andthe industrial cordons - co-ordinations of the trade unionsby geographical zone - saw thebirth of a beginning of dualpower, starting from structuresestablished by the authorities orby the trade-unionconfederation. Something ofcapital importance was posedthen: the new structures thatwere the most effective in theorganization of the struggle alsohad to demonstrate theireffectiveness in the resolution ofdaily problems, showthemselves to be moredemocratic, more representative:demonstrate their superiority.

It is there that the problem ofconfrontation with the state isposed. As it becomesgeneralised, this process runs upagainst the rights of ownership,against the institutions and thecapitalist state. "The right toexistence takes precedence overthe right to property"(Convention of 1793), thedemocracy of the new structuresrepresenting the people - factoryor neighbourhood assemblies -takes precedence over the oldstructures. There is at thismoment contradiction andstruggle between the old and thenew. The "new" also exertspressure on the fragmentation ofthe old bourgeois institutions.Democratic demands must be

put forward within the oldparliamentary or municipalinstitutions, but the axis, thepriority in order to resolve the"duality of powers", is for themass movement to have its ownindependent forms oforganization.

The experience of the ParisCommune made Marx evolve onthe question of the state, which itwas no longer a question oftransforming but of smashing.

The lessons of all revolutionaryexperiences, socialist orrevolutionary nationalist,confirm the need to destroy theapparatus of repression of theruling classes. And we mean bythat, the hard core of the State -army, police, judicial system,central administrative machinery- even if these institutions can,under the pressure ofrevolutionary events, fragmentand split (e.g. committees orcouncils of soldiers, trade unionsof magistrates, etc.)

History shows that this processunleashes the opposition and therepression of the ruling classes.The fundamental forces instruggle clash with each other,confront each other, tearthemselves apart at strategically-decisive moments. These are themoments of revolutionary crisis,where the confrontation betweenthe classes is played out, wherethings sway from one side to theother... It is necessary to preparethis or these moments... so as toconcentrate the forces of themovement from below againstthe state apparatus. The questionof power is posed, and theduality of powers must then beresolved, one way or the other.The preparations for revolutioncan last "several months, severalyears", Ernest Mandel specifies,but the moments of centralconfrontations are always themost decisive.

The objective is then to defendthe revolutionary process. Weare not putschists - "the

Russia, with the limits that weknow - durable phases self-organised power. But, in all massmovements of a certain scopeand, all the more so, allrevolutionary crises, there is theaspiration of social movementsto establish the first forms ofself-emancipation. That createsthe conditions for the emergenceof new structures ofrepresentation of the popularmovement. Without falling intoany kind of linear vision of thedevelopment of the massmovement, that can take theform of general assemblies,action committees, strikecommittees, and later oncommunal or workers' councils.Our role consists on eachoccasion of testing thepossibilities for new structuresof self-organization, of creatingthem, of centralizing them asforms of popular representation,giving priority to theorganization of citizens andworkers in their localities andtheir workplaces. There is therea desire for coherence betweenour project for socialist self-management and the importancegiven to "socialism from below".

8) Dual Power

There too, the most recentexperiences of situations ofsocial and political pre-revolutionary crises pose thequestions of dual power, alwaysin "specific" forms. They resultfrom new forms of popularrepresentation, combining theorganization of the massmovement and a crisis of theexisting institutions, which canput on the agenda constituentprocesses. That was the case inVenezuela where elections to aConstituent Assembly areenvisaged next August, under anenormous pressure of the massmovement. There again, when arevolutionary process deepens,new popular structures ofrepresentation appear, newlegitimacies against the oldcentral state apparatus are

emancipation of the workers willbe the act of the workersthemselves" - but we are notnaive. This defence impliesacting "militarily". Withouthowever appearing to be theaggressor, Leon Trotskyexplains, in extraordinary pageson the history of the RussianRevolution, that the MRC(Military RevolutionaryCommittee of the Soviet ofPetrograd) took the initiative ofthe seizure of power, whiletaking care always to maintain adefensive position: it wasnecessary to defend Petrogradagainst the troops of Kornilovwho were going to empty thecity.

So from the history of thiscentury and some revolutions,we will retain the importance ofthe preparatory process. But thedecisive character of therevolutionary crisis is the"moment" or "moments" whereeverything is played out, wherecertain hours will determine thecourse of history for severaldecades...

The key question remains theconquest of the political power.The first specificity of theproletarian revolution is that theworkers cannot establish newsocial relations, nor durablyconquer new positions, withoutchanging the entire social andpolitical structure. Counter-powers are useful, the fight forreforms is essential. The partialexperiences of control, of self-management in the workplacesor the neighbourhood aredecisive, but not strong enoughto start a process oftransformation of socialrelations. We have to conquerpower.

It is from this standpoint that wedebate with Holloway and withall the currents of the globaljustice movement which defendthe possibility of changing theworld without taking power. Andit is indeed Holloway that we aretalking about, because it seems


18

Marxist

that the Zapatistas are evolvingon this question and no longermake a virtue out of necessity byexplaining that their strugglemust not have a politicaloutcome. Besides, they seizedpower in their zones in Chiapas.The revolutionary experiences inLatin America show on the onehand, the need to drive forwardthe movement from below, andon the other hand, the decisiveimportance of the impulsionfrom on high. The positive roleand the limits of someone likeChavez show the importance ofbuilding an overall politicalalternative. The social-liberalpolicies of someone like Lulacall for a political alternative,including an electoral one,oriented towards a break withimperialism and the financialmarkets. Counter-powers or theaddition of social movementsare not enough to oppose analternative to liberal capitalism.

Of course, throughout thehistory of social struggles, manyreforms, new rights, socialconquests were obtained underthe pressure of relationships offorces and social mobilizations...without taking power!

Revolutionaries are in favour ofall reforms which improve theliving and working conditions ofthe population. They areattentive to or take part in all theexperiences which loosen thevice of capitalist domination.These movements are decisivebut are not sufficient toconsolidate the gains that havebeen made in the long term - theruling classes often take backwith one hand what they haveconceded with the other - nor tochange the fundamental logicand substitute a logic of socialneeds for the logic of profit.

In the building of an alternative,these experiences can prove tobe indispensable points ofsupport, but their accumulationcannot be enough to overthrowthe fundamental logic of society.

With the perspective of a newpower for workers and citizens,there is also the place for a logicof radical democracy based onproposals for the transformationof parliamentary assemblies: asingle-chamber constituentassembly, the definition ofcompetences, proportionalrepresentation, control of electedofficials, creation of structuresof direct democracy, subsidiarityfrom the local to the Europeanlevel, in the framework of aconstituent process.

In short, the objective pursued isthe generalization of a radicaldemocracy which, starting froma radical transformation of theassembly, opens the perspectiveof structures for a new power.This is the problematic thatTrotsky put forward, in 1934, inhis draft action programme forthe Communist League of thetime.

This constituent process must beused to push forward a newpower of direct democracy. Butin a revolutionary situation, thedemocratic effectiveness of self-organization runs up against thestate apparatus.

We have already seen variousexamples: either the constituentassembly is carried away by therevolutionary whirlwind andtransmits its powers to the newrevolutionary structures, or goesinto hibernation, or else itopposes the new forms of self-organized power, thus provokinga conflict. Let us not forget thatin certain revolutionary crises,Germany in 1918-19 or Portugalin 1974-75, the ConstituentAssembly was used as a counter-revolutionary instrument. It wasthen necessary to put the accenton the structures of self-organization and on theircentralization. All this process isnot external to the institutions ofbourgeois democracy, especiallyin countries with long-standingparliamentary traditions - therevolutionary process exertspressure on them - but the

objective is the constitution of anew power. We still do not think- unlike certain Austro-Marxist,"Eurocommunist" or "leftreformist" theses - that we canconquer power by combining"popular power" and "gradualconquest of a revolutionarymajority in the old parliament".The taking of political powerrequires getting rid of the oldinstitutions and building newones.

After the conquest of power, theproblems are posed differently,in particular at the beginning of asociety of transition tosocialism: several assemblieselected by universal suffrage cancoexist with territorialassemblies and assembliesresulting from elections in theworkplaces, even assembliesrepresenting national minorities.Assemblies which will havepower, assemblies elected byuniversal suffrage. Thiscombination was tried in anephemeral way under the ParisCommune.

This was the position of RosaLuxembourg on the dissolutionof the Constituent Assembly inRussia. She came out for thedissolution of an assemblywhich no longer corresponded tothe real state of the country anddemanded a new ConstituentAssembly, that is, alongside thepower of the Soviets anassembly elected by universalsuffrage: "Without generalelections, without unlimitedfreedom of the press and ofassembly, without a free struggleof opinions, life dies away in allpublic institutions, vegetates,and the bureaucracy remains theonly active element".

When there is conflict, it is thepeople who have the last word.

10) Workers' government

The demand for a "workers'government" ("government ofthe workers" or of the "popularclasses") is a transitional slogan

They run up against the centralpower.

To prevent structuralmodifications of society, theruling classes use a double safetymechanism: the state andcapitalist property. Moreover,the war in Iraq, the attempts toset up here and there in Europeor America state or para-statemechanisms demonstrate thekey role of states. The state isredeploying, but it is there. Thestrength of Americanimperialism, like the power ofthe multinationals, demonstratesthe importance of the ownershipof capital and the major meansof production in the worldeconomy. Economic andmilitary power appears to bemore disseminated than ever, butit is also more concentrated thanever.

To open the way to change, thisdouble safety mechanism mustbe demolished: the state andproperty. Without arevolutionary socialmobilization which breaks thebackbone of capitalistdomination - the state - andwhich substitutes for capitalistproperty public and socialownership, the mechanisms ofproduction and reproduction ofcapital continue to dominate.

9) Self-organization,democracy

The relationships betweenparliamentary institutions,constituent assemblies, andstructures of self-organizationconstitute one of the keyproblems of a revolutionarystrategy, in particular in themajor imperialist countries.

The axis is the self-organization,the emergence, and thecentralization of the structures ofdirect democracy, in the broadsense: not only "factorycouncils" in the "workerist"sense, but social and politicalself-management constituted aspolitical power.


19

Theory

with the bourgeoisie". But theseformulas have today beenrelativised by history.

Two remarks on this approach:

It is closely related torevolutionary situations. Inmany documents, in particularon Germany or France in 1922,Trotsky speaks about "theparliamentary beginning of theproletarian revolution".

But all these experiences, eventhough they can have as theirstarting point a parliamentarymajority, must very quickly findtheir centre of gravity in theorgans of dual power, otherwisethese governments get boggeddown or become the hostages ofbourgeois institutions.

This is what Trotsky denouncedas "the parliamentaryinterpretation" of the workers'government. It is unfortunatelythe error that was committed bysome revolutionary militants: inSaxony-Thuringia, where theleaders of the KPD made thedecisions on insurrection dependon the legal government of theLand, dominated by left socialdemocrats, and not on a councilof committees. This was also theexperience in Catalonia in Julyand September 1936, where thePOUM accepted the dissolutionof the "central committee of themilitias" in order to enter andrecognize the government of the"Généralitat Catalana" as thelegal government of Catalonia.

These formulations weresituated within a certainhistorical framework, marked bythe driving force of the RussianRevolution, where the reformistand Stalinist parties, in spite oftheir degeneration, still hadreferences to the revolution, tothe "dictatorship of theproletariat" (the SFIO and LéonBlum in the 1930s), to the breakwith capitalism, where avanguard of several millionworking-class militants, evenreformists, were educated in this

"ideological bath". Thesedemands for a break with thebourgeoisie no longer makemuch sense addressed to social-democratic formations whichhave been carried away bysocial-liberalism. They can have,in certain political conjunctures,a certain functionality withrespect to the militant base ofcertain CPs, in the followingform: "choose between a social-liberal alliance and an anti-capitalist alternative",understanding well that thedynamics of reformism and ofintegration - over a long period -into bourgeois institutions, leadsthe bureaucratic apparatuses ofthe CPs to adapt to the existingorder.

These historical modifications ofthe workers' movement haveconsequences for the problemsof "current policy": there is acertain de-synchronisationbetween the policy of unity ofaction and the construction of apolitical alternative.

We are for unity of action of theentire social and political leftagainst the far right, the rightand the employers. We do notthink it is possible to build analternative to liberal capitalismalong with social-liberalism.There is no logic other than aparliamentary logic in seeking"an anti-liberal majority againstthe Right involving the entireLeft and therefore the SP and thesocial-liberal Left.

This "parliamentary" optioncannot be taken up to thedetriment of an accumulation offorces against liberal capitalism.

Lastly, there can be specificcases, in the developingcountries, where revolutionarynationalist governments breakwith imperialism, even if it is apartial break. This is the casewith Chavez in Venezuela.Trotsky gave some indicationsconcerning the government ofLazaro Cardénas in Mexico inthe 1930s or the APRA in Peru.

These governments, whichoppose imperialism, must besupported against imperialism,while maintaining ourindependence. Independence,because there is a political battle,a struggle in the "anti-imperialist" camp betweenrevolutionaries, reformists,nationalists, etc. Politicalstruggle, but support for aprocess. We judge the measuresthat are taken for the popularclasses and the initiatives foraction and mobilization. As aresult of which, for example, wegive support to what is called theprocess of the Bolivarianrevolution.

On governmental questions, ourpositions must thereforecombine:

a) independence with respect tothe governments which managethe institutions and the capitalisteconomy;

b) the refusal to take part in anygovernment which manages theinstitutions or the capitalisteconomy. Our tactic isdetermined by the policy and thedecisions of each government,supporting positive measures,opposing the others;

c) a position determined by thecourse of the government inquestion - from frontalopposition to the Lulagovernment, which is today asocial-liberal government - tosupport - the experience ofChavez;

d) and to always centre ourefforts on the development of theindependent movement of themasses.

François Sabado is a member of thePolitical Bureau of the RevolutionaryCommunist League (LCR, Frenchsection of the Fourth International),and of the Executive Bureau of theFourth International.

put forward in a revolutionarysituation, in the 1920s, or on theeve of the Second World War,which Trotsky envisaged as arepetition of the First. These arethe formulas developed in theTransitional Programme. Ingeneral, these questions take ongreat importance in situations ofacute social and political crisis.The debates that we have on thegovernmental formula orformulas of are often farremoved from this context.

The workers' government is atransitional governmentalformula, in a situation of crisiswhere the institutions of the oldstate apparatus are not yetdestroyed. It is not yet the powerof popular organs or the"dictatorship of the proletariat",but it is no longer the normalfunctioning of bourgeoisinstitutions. It is thus not asynonym for the dictatorship ofthe proletariat. It is a possibleintermediate government, on theroad to the conquest of power bythe workers.

Also, all the formulas ofworkers' government include ingeneral immediate demands, butalso objectives related toworkers' control, to theexpropriation of the capitalists,or even the arming of theproletariat. In revolutionarysituations, there is a coherencebetween a united front policyand the proposal for agovernment that breaks with thebourgeoisie. There, the"workers' government can be thecrowning point of the unitedfront policy". The basis for unityof action and for a government isthe same: they are coalitions ofrevolutionary forces, leftreformists, centrists orrevolutionary nationalists, basedon popular organizations orcommittees. It is by referring toRussia from February to October1917, and Germany between1918 and 1923, that Trotsky useshis formulations "demandingthat the workers' parties break


20

alternative are interrelated and have to becarried out simultaneously.

Fairy tales

These points - relationship of forces, politicalsituation, and so on - are very important andhave to be clarified. A correct analysis of thesocial and political situation, including arealistic analysis of the relation of forcesbetween classes, between left and right wingparties, between radical left and neo-liberalleft is useful. But, anyhow, an accurateanalysis will not automatically guarantee aclever political orientation. Of course, if itwas so, life would be easier for us!Unfortunately, a correct analysis cannot byitself provide an orientation. But it canspecify what is possible. And what is NOTpossible.

And, according to the real situation of Frenchsociety in 2007, some hypotheses that havebeen brandished in diverse debates amongthe anti-liberal Left were simply… notpossible. For example, some of the self-proclaimed leaders of the anti-liberal Lefthave supported the idea that a joint singlecandidate of the anti-liberal Left would havebeen able to get more than 10% of the votesfor the first round of the presidentialelection.

Some even stated that a single anti-liberalcandidate could get a better result than thecandidate of the SP! Under suchcircumstances, being suspicious about a"secondary" issue such as the supposed andcontingent relations with the SP would havebeen out of place! And the insistence of theLCR in raising that issue would only havebeen additional evidence that the LCRactually didn't want a common candidatebecause the LCR was only looking for pretextsin order to stand Olivier Besancenot as itsown candidate…

And you can oppose nothing to that, noteven the genuine results of the election! Forthe supporters of a single anti-neoliberalcandidature, whatever the political costshould be, the results of the election are just

A new political situation

The main issue, of course, is the election ofNicolas Sarkozy and the meaning of thatevent for the Left. Sarkozy was elected with aclear advance mainly because he was able tobring together the right and to convince asignificant number of former far right voters.He first won the ideological battle forhegemony and then the electoral battle.Ségolène Royal - the candidate of the SP -didn't propose a really different programmeand was unable to personify the hope of abetter life, better jobs, better wages.

At this point, Sarkozy's victory is an electoralvictory. His biggest challenge is to change itinto a social victory, into a defeat of theworking class in order to accelerateimplementation of the neo-liberal agendathat has been delayed in France (compared toothers developed countries) by socialresistance. Whether he can win thatchallenge or not is exactly what is at stake inthe coming months.

Social and political background

We can all consider that the election ofSarkozy and the circumstances of thiselection will significantly help the offensive ofthe MEDEF (bosses' association) and the rightwing parties against workers' rights. In acertain way, the high number of voters forthis election as well as the really very rightistproposals Sarkozy made publicly during hiselectoral campaign are new and importantobstacles to popular resistance because hispolitics have gained a kind of legitimacy on abroad scale.

But there is more controversy about anotherissue: this election obviously shows anevolution towards the right of the politicalsuperstructures (both right wing and leftwing parties). But is that global trendanother evidence of a deep gap between thegenuine mood of ordinary people and thedifferent political apparatus? Or is thiselection the logical concretization of analready damaged status of the relationship offorces between social classes and of left ideas

in society? In other words: after a social andpolitical period of increasing popularresistance, are we now faced with a kind of"downturn"? This issue can remain open for awhile.

My view is that we should remember that theoutcome of most of the explosions ofresistance - from 1995 to 2006 - has not beena victory and that the neo-liberal agenda haseffectively been implemented in France,though at a slower rhythm than in otherimperialist countries.

I have summarized a more detailed analysisof these issues in a document for the LCRNational Leadership "Remarques post 6 mai",available on request (but, unfortunately, onlyin French ...).

In his document - "The French presidentialelection" - Murray Smith considers it "a verylucid and realistic contribution on the extentand limits of resistance to neo-liberalism andthe relationship of class forces in Francetoday". But he states that, despite that"objective" situation, important items to beunderlined are "the level of politicalconsciousness" , "a greater mobilisation andpoliticisation of young people".Consequently, he argues, the main issue to beaddressed is "a credible political alternative".And he adds: "In the first place, the lack ofsuch an alternative makes social resistanceharder".

Yes, we have to build a credible politicalalternative! But is the lack of this politicalalternative the main reason for ourdifficulties in building a broad movement ofresistance? One can also think exactly... theother way round! The difficulties inorganising resistance are significant obstaclesto building a political alternative. Thesedifficulties - and the defeat of some of thewidest movements of resistance (such as thedemonstrations and strikes in 2003) - canexplain the difficulties in building a politicalalternative, as well! Most probably, theconclusion will be that the tasks of buildingresistances AND building a political

France

The presidential election anddebates on the LeftFrançois Duval

A few weeks ago, I published an article entitled "French Left:what's going on?" for the use of activists of the differentparties and movements of the European Anti-capitalist Leftwho wanted to know more about the situation of the FrenchLeft. This new document sets out to give additionalinformation and analysis after the results of the two rounds ofthe presidential election and, incidentally, discuss somecontributions written on the same topic among the anti-capitalist and/or anti-liberal Left.


21

an evidence of the mess caused by theabsence of such a candidature. And the"apparatus" of the CP and the LCR are(necessarily) guilty for that mess. A mess thatwould not have taken occurred in the case ofa common candidature…

They don't try to explain why, in theframework of a global disaster for the anti-liberal Left, Olivier Besancenot and the LCRhave been able to resist and obtain a "relativesuccess". They don't try to explain it becauseit is not so easy to do so and, mainly, becausethey are not interested in doing so. Theyprefer to feed the regrets of lost illusions.

But, of course, more that 10% for an anti-liberal candidate - or even more votes thanthe candidate of the SP! - were just absurdstatements. Nevertheless, AFTER the 22nd ofApril, some of the leaders of the former anti-liberal coalition, mainly those who supportedJosé Bové, are still "explaining" what couldhave happened ... "if".

For instance, in the daily Liberation(11/05/2007), Yves Salesse - former candidateto be the candidate of the anti-liberal Leftand a spokesman of José Bové's campaign -wrote: "The failure of the left doesn't endwith the failure of the social-liberalism.Because it doesn't provide any accurateanswer, the division of those who aresupporting another orientation for the Lefthas been devastating. The surprise of thiselection should not have been Bayrou but thebreakthrough of this alternative Left. Theleaderships of the LCR and the CP have madea different choice."

For instance, Pierre Khalfa, a former leader ofSUD and a leading member of the Frenchglobal justice movement, in the course of hisdebate with Pierre Rousset wrote: "For me, itwas possible to be involved in unitivedynamics which would have won more than15% of the votes, asserting its will to win themajority in the Left space. Of course, this isnot what has happened. But this fact doesn'tinvalidate my position, except if it's a case ofwishful thinking: I analyse that it is notpossible; I act in order for that not to bepossible; it didn't happen; so, I was right tothink it was not possible!"

For instance Murray Smith wrote: "I havenever found convincing the wilder surges ofenthusiasm by the partisans of unity, goingso far as to predict that a unitary candidatecould have got more votes than the SP. But Ithink he or she would certainly have gotmore than 8.5 per cent. Between 10 and 15

"food sovereignty". He also had a veryindulgent evaluation of her openingstowards François Bayrou and the centre right.That doesn't "prove" he was under the controlof the SP. But it proves that the issue aboutbeing independent from the SP that the LCRhad raised was not... superfluous. Theelectoral results were bad (483,000 votes;1.32%) and left many of its supportersdisappointed. Anyhow, one point must notbe discarded: he really did have a significantnumber of supporters, some of them beingradical activists of the social movements, anecessary component to build a politicalalternative, a broad anti-capitalist party. Aproblem that has to be dealt with now...

The campaign of Marie-George Buffet was animpossible challenge from the start. The CPdesperately tried to convince people to votefor her - and not for the SP candidate - bycriticising the neo-liberal orientation of theSP. But, at the same time, the CP neverexplicitly rejected the idea of a governmentalor parliamentary coalition with the SP,feeding the illusion that it would be possibleto have a government bringing together "allthe left"... on an anti-liberal basis! The CPobtained its worst ever result: 707,000 votes;1.93%. Then it has tried (without success)with the SP leadership in order to rescue ahandful of its MPs. No doubt about it: this isa new step in the endless crisis of the CP. Andthe anti-capitalist Left has to deal with that...

Another issue we have to think about is theresult of Arlette Laguiller, the candidate forLutte Ouvrière (LO), the main otherrevolutionary organisation in France: frommore than 5% in 2002 to 1.33% in 2007.There are several explanations for that. It wasthe sixth (!) campaign of Arlette Laguiller forpresidential election and that was not thebest way to show how revolutionaryorganisations deal with the renewal ofpolitics.

This was made worse by the competitionwith Olivier Besancenot, of course. Someformer voters for LO were also angry aboutits attitude after the 21st April 2002 when LOrefused to be part of the movement againstLe Pen. And during the 2007 campaign, LOsometimes gave the impression of calling onthe SP to defend genuine left measuresrather than opposing it. Anyhow, the anti-capitalist left should now consider that LOwill remain a significant revolutionaryorganisation that will not disappear just likethat...

France

per cent seems a perfectly realisableobjective. At that level, the relationship offorces on the left starts to change, and aserious marker is laid down for the future".

Before the first round of the presidentialelection, you could consider theses analysesjust as (serious) political mistakes orridiculous polemical speeches in order todenounce the "sectarianism of the apparatusof the CP and the LCR" and to please theaverage mood of the numerous activists ofthe No campaign who were yearning forunity. But, AFTER the results of the election,we are faced to something qualitativelydifferent: a desperate attempt to find amagic explanation of what has gone wrong,a pathetic denial of reality. And, of course, avery comfortable reading of the election thatprotects you from any self-criticism! Actually,they prefer to borrow an "explanation" onceused by the SP. Just as the SP tried to "explainthe 21st April 2002" by the dispersion of theleft (too many candidates), they explain thefailure of the anti-liberal left in 2007 by itsdispersion...

Back to reality

The attempt of José Bové to present hiscampaign as a unitary campaign failed. Evenhis decision to stand was not, in any case, theresult of a democratic debate in the"movement" or in the framework of theremaining anti-liberal collectives. When itwas possible for him to be designated ascandidate by at least a part of the anti-liberalcollectives, he withdrew his candidature. Hehas been able to be "designated" only afterthe explosion of the movement (after thetakeover of the CP in order to impose itsgeneral secretary as unitary candidate) via avery anti-democratic process through a web-petition.

Some of his rallies were successes, whileothers were not. He failed to express a reallybroad anti-liberal orientation and confinedhimself to very specific - though legitimate -issues (such as the fight again disseminationof genetically modified crops). It also must benoticed that he attacked LCR publicly in avery nasty way, while Olivier Besancenotnever attacked the other candidates of theanti-liberal Left. He even counterposed itscandidature to the "eleven others" presentedas "candidates of the system"!

Between the two rounds of the presidentialelection, he even accepted a "mission" fromthe SP candidate (Segolène Royal) about


22

France

New responsibilities, newopportunities

Obviously, the political situation after thispresidential election gives newresponsibilities to the LCR. As noticed before,we have to deal with the disappointment andthe bitterness of the activists who supportedJosé Bové; we also have to deal with thedeepening crisis of the CP and the formersupporters of LO who are more or lessorphans. But in order to decide what to do, itis necessary to analyse our own results andunderstand why we have been able to resistbetter than the others candidates of the anti-liberal Left. Because we now have to buildmainly on that basis.

There are at least three reasons of the successand they make the difference with the othercandidates:

v The defence of a radical anti-capitalistprogramme,

v The ability to personify the renewal of theradical left,

v Absolute independence from any hint thatwe would support a government of theneoliberal SP "Left".

Our programme - for the presidentialcampaign and for the general elections - wasa set of emergency measures that were at thesame time concrete answers to the situationof millions of people and a bridge towardsanother world. The LCR has not inventedanything: most of these measures wereborrowed from social movements or, at least,from the most advanced sectors of the socialmovements. But supporting them withoutany compromise made the difference: theyare not items of a programme just forelections; they have been and they will be thecore of the forthcoming struggles.

Personifying the renewal of the Left needs aclear political profile and a candidateappropriate for that. Olivier Besancenot wasthat candidate because he is young - andable to be understood by young people - andbecause he is a worker, not a professionalpolitician. In 2002, one of the slogans of thecampaign was: "Olivier Besancenot, 27 yearsold, postman". At that time, he was theyoungest candidate by large. In 2007, ofcourse, he was five years older... but he wasstill the youngest candidate. And he was stilla postman, as well. It's not about "casting" or

political "communication". It's about ourideas of political fight.

Absolute independence has been the mostdisputed issue. It's the most important one.It's both correct and… efficient! Many newvoters and many former voters for the radicalLeft in 2002 (even the majority of voters forOlivier Besancenot) voted for Ségolène Royalin April 2007, even without any enthusiasmfor her programme and campaign: thepressure for "useful vote", the will to avoidanother "21st of April", the opposition toNicolas Sarkozy were very high. And thesereasons explain to a large extent the averagebad results of the radical Left. More then thefact that this anti-liberal Left was divided,anyway. And those voters who neverthelesswanted to vote "more to the left" that the SPchose to vote for the most independentcandidate from the SP, Olivier Besancenot.Actually, having 280,000 votes more than in2002 means, at least, he has convincedbetween 800,000 and 900,000 news voters.

Considering what would have happened if - ifa common candidate would have stand, ifthe CP have supported José Bové or anothernon communist candidate, if the LCR hadsupported José Bové, and so on - make nosense, because these hypotheses have just nobasis in reality. But, anyhow, I believe thatMarie-George Buffet featuring a commonanti-liberal candidate, supported by LCR andanti-liberal collectives, would have got moreor less the same result she reached as acandidate of the CP.

José Bové, supported by the LCR and CP,would have got, more or less, the sameresults he got on its own. Nowadays, none ofthe parties of the anti-liberal and/or anti-capitalist Left has a stabilised electorate. Forevery election, you have to win every voter byconvincing them it is useful to vote for you.And arithmetic is not politics...

Anyhow, the results of the first round of thepresidential election, the number of peoplewho sent letters or e-mails in order to joinand resist against Sarkozy have given the LCRa broad credibility. And new responsibilities!After the general elections that, mostprobably, will be a severe defeat for the SPand its allies, a debate will begin about thefuture of the Left. For many activists insidethe traditional Left and among workers andyoung people, the question is: what hadhappened? Why have we been defeated?How can we avoid new forthcoming defeats?

The different leaders of the SP are alreadyarguing of the necessity for an"aggiornamento", a realignment of theFrench SP on the political orientation alreadyshared by the other parties of the Europeansocial-democracy. They underlined thecontrast between their defeat and thevictories of Tony Blair in the UK or RomanoProdi in Italy. They suggest they lost theelection because they were linked to old-fashioned ideas about socialism, classstruggle and so on. And they begin to thinkabout the kind of relationship they must havewith the centre right.

The challenge we have to answer is to showthat, in face of that neo-liberal left, there isanother left, a left "100% left", which thinksthat in order to oppose Sarkozy you mustrefuse any evolution towards centre andclearly defend workers' rights. A Left entirelycommitted to struggles and socialistalternatives. A Left whose main purpose willbe to organise resistance and contest thehegemony of the SP rather than trying topressure it.

The LCR doesn't intend to be sectarian orarrogant. But there is absolutely no reason toapologize for not having been marginalisedlike the other candidates and parties of theanti-liberal Left! Now, we have to move andoffer a genuine alternative to failedorientations. We have to do it in an openmanner, with the genuine will to associate asmany people as possible.

How can the LCR - a small revolutionaryorganisation - in practice help a significantnumber of people to make a new steptowards a broad anti-capitalist party? Thisissue will now be discussed among ourmembers (old and new) and be clarifiedduring the preparation of our nationalCongress (December 2007). But, during thatdiscussion, we will keep in mind the reasonswhy we are faced with such a challenge(rather than sadly discussing about ourfailure): commitment to a radical anti-capitalist programme and absoluteindependence from the institutional left.

François Duval is a leading member of the LCR(French section of the Fourth International).


23

candidates; there is only one name on theballot paper. It is a hang-over of Gaullism andthe strong state, where the candidate-president meets the people and the citizensover the head of the parties and the electedassemblies, is able to name the PrimeMinister, has exorbitant powers, notcontrolled by a parliament which he even hasthe right to dissolve if he wants to. Theseinstitutions have modelled political life formany years, and the political parties havealmost all had to adapt to this framework.

Everyone then thought that if the politicalquestions were resolved, we would find asolution for the candidate: find a personalityaccepted by all, a name on the ballot paper,around whom the best-known figures(Buffet, Besancenot, Bové, etc...) wouldgather, in meetings and common mediainterventions.

For the legislative elections, it would bepossible to vary the candidates coming fromthe various political forces in the 580constituencies.

The LCR did not play the game

While affirming that it was in favour of suchcandidatures, the LCR organised a nationalconference in June 2006. A majority (60%)decided to launch the candidacy of OlivierBesancenot, while affirming that it wouldwithdraw it if a unity agreement wasconcluded later. The minority (40%) defendedthe idea that it was necessary first of all to beintegrated into the unitary movement and tothrow all our weight into obtaining the bestpossible agreement, before launching ourBesancenot campaign, which made usappear to not really want unity.

This divergence within the LCR wasconcretized in two possible orientations. Anddifferently from preceding debates in the LCR- which is however accustomed to internaldebates - the divergence was expressed

The context of the 2007 elections inFrance cannot be understood withoutreference to two political and socialevents which happened in the last twolast years: - the victory of the "no" in thereferendum on the liberal constitutionfor Europe, a victory obtained by thevoters of the left (a majority of SocialistParty voters voted "no" whereas theleadership of the PS defended "yes")andby a mobilization of the anti-liberal Left(PCF, LCR, left socialists, global justicecampaigners, left ecologists).

For months, Olivier Besancenot, MarieGeorge Buffet (PCF), José Bové, figure of theglobal justice movement, J.L.Mélenchon (leftwing of the PS) multiplied joint meetings,mobilizing thousands of participants.Consequently, the question was widelyposed: how to concretize this relationship offorces, this overturn within the left, to thedisadvantage of the social-liberal orientationdefended by the leadership of the SocialistParty.

The powerful movement of workers andyouth, in spring 2006,for the first time madethe government of the liberal Right retreat.The government wanted to impose oneveryone under 25 insecure employmentcontracts (First Employment Contract, C.P.E.,which gave employers the right to sack themwithout giving any justification). On twooccasions, three million demonstrators tookto the streets, after 3 months of massivemobilizations, making it the strongestmovement, in term of demonstrations, since1968. This movement confirmed thatresistance to liberalism was dominant withinthe country, a year after the referendum.

There then arose on the left, on a mass scale,an immense hope that we could succeed inexpressing this anti-liberal aspiration on theelectoral terrain in 2007. The idea of "Unity ofthe anti-liberal left" was popular, as opposed

to the multiplication and the dispersion ofcandidacies just for the sake of it, whichwould defend virtually identical politicalproposals. The idea was born of an electoralcoalition between all these forces, to presentcandidates in common for the 2007 elections- presidential (April), and legislative (June).

A new appeal was made, calling to bringtogether all the forces that were inagreement with this objective and to createunitary collectives at the base in the localities.At their height there were between 600 and700 collectives, spread across the wholecountry, involving approximately 15.000people. Not only did we see the whole arc offorces that had made the common campaignfor a "no" from the left in the referendum, butespecially many militants, trade unionists andorganizers of social movements, who saw, atlast, the outlines of a political space in whichthey could take their place, to express on thepolitical level their day-to-day struggles.

It was then necessary to move from acampaign based on refusal of liberalism tothe positive formulation of an alternativeprogramme, of political proposals, of astrategy implying the clarification of therelationship with the Socialist Party, theattitude towards the Right and towards agovernment of the Left and a leftparliamentary majority.

It was also necessary to solve a difficultproblem within the specific framework of theinstitutions of the Fifth Republic: in France,elections take place in two rounds.

For the legislative elections, there areapproximately 580 constituencies, whicheach elect a deputy, in a uninominal systemwith two rounds. There is no proportionalrepresentation. And France is one of the rareEuropean countries to elect its president bydirect universal suffrage. There is not even, asin the USA, a vice-president, which makes itpossible to compose a "ticket" of two

France

Preparing for the presidentialelections - a minority reportAlain Mathieu, Patrick Tamerlan

Report on the situation in France

Given to the International Committee of the Fourth International, in the name of the minority of the LCR.


24

publicly, by different interventions in publicmeetings and in the movement of thecollectives, by the "majority of the LCR", andby the minorities who spoke in the name ofthe "unitary current of the LCR". Theunfolding of events accentuated thesedifferent public expressions, without up untilnow calling into question the unity of theorganization, because the two orientationseach had legitimacy, in the LCR and outsideit.

In September a first stage was accomplished:a meeting of 500 delegates from collectivesand from political forces adopted adocument which specified the politicalframework:

v To regroup all the forces for an alternativeanti-liberal Left in the elections in order tochallenge within the electorate of the left thedomination of the social-liberal policies ofthe PS.

v To defeat the Right and the far Right in thesecond round of the elections by voting forthe best-placed left-wing candidate, withoutconditions or negotiations. It was obviousthat it was necessary to respond to thepowerful desire to beat Sarkozy: if the Rightwas victorious again, following on 2002, wewould see a situation which would resemblethe second term of Mrs. Thatcher in theUnited Kingdom, with an offensive aiming todestroy the powerful resistance to liberalism.

v To define an attitude towards agovernment of the Left, after the experienceof the "plural Left" between 1997 and 2002,when the PCF took part in the government ofLionel Jospin. It was a key question, to verifywhat the PCF's policy was. The text of theagreement specified clearly:

"We will not be part of a governmentdominated by social-liberalism, which, by itscomposition and by its project, would notgive itself the means of finally breaking withliberalism, would not respond to whatpeople were waiting for. The Socialist Party, inparticular, has adopted a programme whichturns its back on a clear break with liberalism.It is out of the question, for us, to negotiateon this basis a contract of government whoseaction, letting people down once again,would lead ineluctably to the return of aharder Right"

The text further specified:

"If we do not take part in the government,our group in Parliament will not take part ina majority made up to support thisgovernment, but will vote in favour of anylegislative provisions going in the direction ofthe interests of the population. We will alsouse our parliamentary strength, along withall those who will take part in socialmobilizations, to get a certain number ofpositive measures adopted or to get negativemeasures withdrawn; to translate ourprogramme into law and reality. We reservethe right to judge and to discuss publicly howthe government and its majority act in thecourse of the legislature".

So we were very far, for example, from whatRifondazione had accepted in Italy: to takepart in a government of coalition, not onlywith the social-liberal Left, but also with thecentre-right of Prodi, and in a majority thatsupported it. The refusal of the PCF to takepart in a social-liberal governmentdemonstrated a certain break with itstraditional positions. Having fallen to a verylow electoral level, it did not want to go evenlower by endorsing unpopular social-liberalgovernmental policies. Of course, that didnot mean that the PCF, on another occasion,would not change its mind, nor that therewere not within it currents which regrettedabandoning this policy of alliance with thePS. But the success of the "no" and the anti-liberal resistance had convinced it that itshould use the coming period to regainstrength and credit and to win again thepositions it had acquired, by relying on theunitary anti-liberal movement, in which itwanted to remain dominant.

It was however an important occasion, forthe LCR, to take a full part in this movement,to act and to exert pressure on thecontradictions that it entailed within one ofthe two big left parties in France.

The LCR withdrew

The majority of the LCR clumsily put forwardtwo amendments to the agreement, whichwere unconvincing: that participation in agovernment and a majority with the PS wasexcluded, but since the text of the agreementalready said that, it seemed like a pretext. Itasked for the passages to be removed whichenvisaged defeating the Right by calling for asecond-round vote for the best-placed left-wing candidate, but this was rejected asunacceptable in the current situation. Fromthen on, the majority of the LCR put itself in

a situation of "observer" in the movement,and stopped being seriously involved in thecollectives, while the minority "unitary LCR"continued to act within the movement topush it in the right direction.

In October, another stage was reached: anational meeting of 600 representatives ofthe unitary collectives adopted a documentof 125 programmatic proposals, taking upthe best of the demands elaborated by thesocial, anti-war and global justicemovements. All the principal measuresproposed by the Left that was in favour ofsocial transformation and by the socialmovements were there (on sackings, wages,services, immigration, the right to vote forforeigners, refusal of any militaryintervention, in the Middle-East as well as inAfrica, support for Palestine etc...).

Only one important point continued toprovoke debate and was resolved by apositive compromise: on civil nuclear power,between the traditional position of the PCF,favourable to nuclear power, and the endingof nuclear power that was defended by usand the ecologists, it was proposed that thequestion would be decided by a referendumafter a public discussion throughout society,accompanied by a moratorium on theconstruction of new power stations duringthis debate.

The majority of the LCR did not have much tosay in this debate, it did not take part in it,having put itself on the sidelines inSeptember. The minority was there, stronglypresent, defending the traditional politicalpositions of the LCR, generally successfully.

It remained, after the political agreement, tosolve the question of the candidacy by adebate within the collectives. OlivierBesancenot and the LCR put themselves onthe sidelines, Olivier never wanted to be acandidate for the candidacy within themovement, but in spite of that, during allthese months there were very many calls forthe LCR to come back into the movement. Inaddition to the two principal figures (Bovéand Buffet) the debates saw the emergenceof other candidates who did not represent aparticular party, but could be agreed by all:Clementine Autain, Yves Salesse, ClaudeDebons, figures of the unitary movement. Itwas necessary to make the PCF understandthat the candidacy of its general secretarycould not unite the movement, because she

France


25

would reduce it, people thought, to a smallcircle around the Communist Party.

The discussion and the consultation began inthe collectives. José Bové withdrew withoutmuch explanation, criticizing the practices ofthe PCF which wanted to impose its generalsecretary, but especially taking note that hiscandidacy was not being chosen in priority inthe collectives. He would remain absent fromthe movement for two months, reappearingin mid-January supported by a petitioninitiated outside of the movement.

It only remained to make the PCF agree to anon-PCF candidacy, in a situation where ithad become the dominant force within themovement after the withdrawal ofBesancenot and Bové, with the aim ofmaking the two of them come back. OnDecember 9-10, an assembly of more than800 delegates did not succeed in solving thequestion, but the movement was strongenough to prevent the PCF, which was in amajority in the meeting, from imposingMarie-George Buffet as the candidate of thecollectives.

The PCF then underwent an unprecedentedcrisis: it decided just afterwards to force itsway through, against the will of the unitarymovement, and to present Buffet ascandidate, in the name of the party, byhaving recourse to an internal vote. In thisinternal vote, 10.000, out of the 50.000militants of the PCF consulted, voted againstthe candidacy of the general secretary,preferring another candidate who wouldrespect the unity of the unitary movement.Entire federations, sections, those mostcommitted to the movement, voted againstthe majority of the leadership, which,knowing the internal workings of the PCF,was an event. Some left the party, but stillmore still decided to organise to continue thedebate. Those who call themselves "unitarycommunists" are organised in a publicassociation.

It was the first time that the PCF hadundergone such a crisis, and the oppositionwas organised on a basis that was anti-liberaland left. Once again, the majority of the LCRwas absent from this confrontation and thisdebate, and by its refusal of a unitary policyit missed an occasion to influence and makelinks with this movement of contestation. Theunitary minority of the LCR was by the side ofthe unitary militants of the PCF and thecollectives.

Rancour against the leaderships ofthe parties held responsible for the

failure

Immediately after this failure, many militants,but also many voters, were disappointed andfelt great bitterness. The political logicsproper to the parties were judged to beresponsible the division, whereas a politicalagreement was possible and would haveproduced a considerable electoral andpolitical dynamic.

The LCR found itself isolated: not only inbroad sectors of its electorate, but alsoamong the sympathizers and actors of thesocial movements who had previously lookedon it with sympathy. Within the LCR, well-known militants, of long standing, leadingrepresentatives of the political influence ofthe LCR, even if they were not members ofthe minorities, repudiated this policy ofwanting to impose an LCR candidate at allcosts, in direct opposition to the unitarydynamic.

The leadership of the PCF was considered tobe responsible for the failure, the crisis isopen, and the solitary campaign of Buffetdoes not have any dynamic behind it.

Why did the PCF choose to force its waythrough?

The PCF is paying for forcing its way throughby a crisis without precedent. Initially, manypeople thought that it made this choice inorder to return to its policy of alliance withthe Socialist Party. An influential currentwithin the party and its leadership defendthis perspective, but the present leadershipdoes not seem to be following it on thisissue. It appears that the PCF, already reducedto the lowest level in electoral terms and witha decreased number of elected officials (22deputies, whom it is not guaranteed to keep,and municipalities which are threatened withbeing taken from it by the Socialist Party),considers that a "cure of opposition" wouldbe more beneficial to it. All the more so asthe situation after the presidential electiondoes not offer many other choices; either theRight wins, and the question of going intogovernment is not posed. Or the candidate ofthe PS wins, and it will be rather an openingto the "centre" that a recentred PS will seek.The refusal to give way to another unitarycandidature is due to two reasons:

v For the PCF, the interest of this movementwas not only to find itself with the radicalLeft, but to lay the foundations of amovement which would include sectors ofthe opposition within the PS, and to thus aimat the heart of the left electorate. Manyreferences by the PCF to the Germansituation attest to this, as does the presenceof Oskar Lafontaine at the meetings of M.G.Buffet. The PCF was waiting to see how thecurrents of the PS which had defended the"no" to the constitution would react, after thedesignation of Ségolène Royal as candidateof the PS, which demonstrated an inflectionto the right on the part of the PS. In fact,precisely nothing happened: after thisdesignation, the "no" currents, apart fromsome very minority exceptions, have had toagree to form a united bloc with the partyagainst the Right. The only current present assuch in the movement, the PRS group ofMélenchon, gave up at the end of December.It is certain that the contradictions within thePS were attenuated on the eve of an electionwhere it is a question of defeating agovernment of the Right, and that they willre-appear with even more force if the PS isconfronted with applying its policies ingovernment. That was the case of Germany,it was in fact under a Schröder governmentthat the rupture around Lafontaine occurred.Taking note, moreover, of the withdrawal ofBesancenot and Bové, it only remained to thePCF to accept a coalition with small currentsof the radical Left, without anycounterweight coming from the SocialistLeft. The PCF preferred to run its owncampaign, breaking the consensus of thecollectives. More than a disagreement aboutparticipation in government, the realdifference between the PCF and the LCR laythere: what should be the contours of themovement? "Radical anti-liberal Left", or "leftof the plural Left" as Olivier Besancenotargued, or "left of the Left" as the PCFproposed? It is a debate to be continued, butit was not an irremediable divergence whichprevented the LCR from entering a coalition -on the contrary, the debate would haveunfolded in the course of the campaign.

v The second reason is due to the traditionsof this party. To leave behind it the Stalinistperiod which marked its functioning and itsconception of the party that had to be built,the current leadership undertook only a timidreform which did not go far. The "opening" ofthe PCF was limited to agreeing, duringpreceding elections, to make common listswith some small forces around the PCF, which

France


26

remained the centre of gravity. By wanting toreproduce this schema with a powerfulunitary movement, it ran head-on againstthis movement, showing its incapacity tounderstand the meaning of it. As forreflection and debate within the party on"transcending" itself to build another force,there are only some mumblings. The cultureof the party and its militants remains veryattached to its "identity", in defence of the"Party", and these reflexes also pushedtowards a clash with the collectives.

It remains the case that the crisis that hasopened up is extremely profound. The futureof the PCF remains a question that isimpossible to circumvent for all those whopose the question of a new politicalorganization on the left. The PCF, in spite ofits decline, remains one of the forces on theleft which still has the most links withordinary working-class people (much morethan the LCR with its equivalent presidentialresults, and not yet supplanted by a PS whichis struggling to implant itself among theselayers of the population at the same time asit regularly takes on governmentresponsibilities…)

The candidacy of José Bové cannotbe the candidacy of the unitary

movement

After having withdrawn his candidacy in thecollectives, José Bové came back at the end ofJanuary, announcing that he was now acandidate. He was backed by a doublemovement: a petition of 30,000 signaturesorganised outside of the collectives bymilitants who had either a project of creatinga political current behind him (someparticular currents of the ecologist and globaljustice movement),or the idea that this wasthe last chance to force the PCF and the LCRto unite around him. A part of the collectives,on the basis of the rancour that hadaccumulated against the LCR and the PCF,chose to use this candidacy, hoping tomaintain the unitary pressure, while anotherpart of the collectives chose not to supportany candidate, maintaining the objective ofuniting the whole anti-liberal Left.

Bové's candidacy did not shake the LCR: whenthe minorities proposed that Besancenotshould meet Bové to discuss a commoncandidacy, thus effecting at least partialunity, the majority of the LCR refused. So theBové candidacy, legitimate for a layer of

militants, cannot appear as enabling theunity of the movement. By establishing itselfas the third candidacy coming from theunitary movement, it underlines even moreits failure. In the opinion polls, the three orfour candidates who speak in the name ofanti-liberalism are stagnating, with between2 and 3 per cent each. The collectives aredivided on the appropriateness of the Bovécandidacy. Some are trying through it toconstitute an alternative political force whichwould occupy a space by building itselfbetween and against the PCF and the LCR,giving up the objective of a unitarymovement for an objective that is still notvery well defined.

So there will be no unitary anti-liberalcandidate at the 2007 presidential election,and that is a failure, felt as such by thousandsof militants and millions of voters.

Why did the LCR stick to its course?

The political differences invoked by theleadership of the LCR have been seen aspretexts to justify at all costs its separatecandidacy. All the more so as the agreementmade it possible to accept a coalition whereeach party or political force would keep itsautonomy. The reasons, in our opinion, forthe refusal of the majority of the LCR tointegrate into the movement, are of severalkinds:

v The majority of the LCR did not draw thebalance-sheet of the policy that it pursued in2003-2004, based on a far-left agreementwith Lutte Ouvrière, which had led to anelectoral failure, and had subsequently notproduced any effect of politicalregroupment. Going from 10 per cent of thevotes in 2002 to 4 per cent at the 2004regional elections and 2,5 per cent at theEuropean elections, this policy led toisolation, equating the Right and the Left,refusing to enter into dialogue with the anti-liberal forces existing on the political scene.

v The LCR has also become a victim of theFrench presidential system: having a youngand media-friendly candidate, it overruledthe political objections of its sympathisers,hoping that at the end of the day itscandidate would obtain an honourable result(between 3 and 4 per cent), and reduced itsobjective to a competition with LO and thePCF. Rather than making it possible to take astep forward in the building of a unitarymovement, (which would have been able to

France

unleash a dynamic and to get more than 10per cent of the votes), it preferred theaffirmation of a candidacy guaranteeing theidentity of the current which we represent.That will not lead to any step forward inregrouping activists, and even a good resultwill not be repeated, since we know that inthe legislative elections, the LCR has neitherthe political implantation nor the popularsupport to attain the same relationship offorces.

v Especially, the LCR has been a victim of aform of conservatism. With 2500 membersand results which can sometimes be up to 4per cent of the electorate, many sections ofthe International could envy this situation.However, it is not the sign that we havereached the Promised Land, and that it isenough for us to occupy this space whilewaiting for the social crisis in which we willmake a revolutionary party emerge. Yearsago, in the LCR and the International, webecame convinced that it was necessary tounite currents and militants in order to createbroad parties, mass parties, to carry forwardthe perspective of a radical change of society,even if revolutionaries were in a minority tostart with. We no longer thought of thebuilding of the revolutionary party as a lineargrowth of our sections. It is this politicaladvance, which was common to us, which isbeing called into question by the majority ofthe LCR. However, it is not a question, inFrance in 2006-2007, of starting bydiscussing the building of a new party. Theanti-liberal unitary movement did notresemble the processes which have given riseto what we have called "broad parties" of theanti-capitalist Left. In several Europeancountries, groups coming from the far-lefthave been capable of pursuing an intelligent,open policy (Portugal, Britain, Scotland,Denmark...). In France, all the attempts at abroad party with the forces of the far Lefthave failed, all the attempts at agreementbetween the LCR and LO ran up against thesectarian politics of L.O.. This time, it was aquestion of something else: of building anelectoral coalition, to test out an initial stageof broader unity, on the basis of an anti-liberal anti-capitalism, rather like in Germanywith the WASG coalition at the elections in2005. Of course, if the electoral coalition hadmaterialised in France, immediatelyafterwards the question would have beenposed of the political space that had to beorganised, passing perhaps through a stageof a federation of parties, currents andcollectives, and in any case moving in time

Furthermore, it is a situation which is tendingto be found on a European scale: the morethe liberal offensive develops, the more thetraditional parties are under pressure andaccentuate their social-liberal turn. But evenmore, in reaction, crises of perspectives takeshape within these parties.

In Germany, the policy of Schröder ingovernment, and then the establishment ofthe grand coalition, led to the unification ofa wing of the SPD with the PDS and a part ofthe radical Left.

In Italy, the coalition government of Prodi isprovoking a crisis within Rifondazione.

In France, unable and unwilling to repeat theexperience of the "plural Left", the PCF today,and the PS tomorrow, will face strongcontradictions. It is necessary to be ready tointervene actively in these crises, which willmultiply.

What our Italian comrades are doing is agood example. Considering their limitedforces, it was necessary for them, 15 yearsago, to go into Rifondazione, which was aproduct of the breaking up of the Italian CP.

Confronted with Rifondazione joining theProdi government, they demonstrated at thesame time their independence in relation tothe government and their loyalty to the socialmovement, without however creating aworst case scenario and becomingresponsible for a return to power ofBerlusconi.

This Italian debate will be important in Francefor the legislative elections, with a PCF whichfor the moment refuses to follow the road ofRifondazione, but remains hesitant on whatpolicy to carry out.

All these debates will involve the EuropeanLeft. It is up to us to know how to respond,not only not by the reaffirmation of principlesthat we declaim from the side of the road,but by a policy of concretely buildingregroupments which respect the principles ofclass independence and encourage workersto get involved in the discussion onalternative policies to those of socialliberalism. In these processes, we will putforward our ideas.


27

France

towards a united political movement. But theLCR refused to enter into even the electoralcoalition, did not want to take the first step,the first stage. For fear of being "sucked in",in order not to take any risks, it preferred tofall back on organising its own space aroundits party and its candidate.

This policy poses the question: if we do nothave confidence in our ideas, in ourprogramme (which is not intended to be keptin the refrigerator, but whose function is toconvince a significant sector of the workingclass so as to become a force for action andtransformation), if we are not able then toconfront it with social reality, if we do notseek to change the relationship of politicalforces within the Left, then that becomes aform of conservatism that is not verycompatible with our announced objective oftransformation of society.

Comrades in the International have atendency, in discussion, to isolate thebuilding of a political movement and thequestion of social struggles: it is enough,according to them, to have a nucleus that isdetermined and firm on principles, in orderto intervene in social struggles, which will inthe end be the decisive element. That is toforget that the concretization of analternative on the political terrain encouragessocial struggles, and that, reciprocally, socialstruggles should help political construction.To build a useful political space, in the senseof providing a vehicle for thousands ofactivists in the trade unions and associations,to organise a political space with which theycan identify and which will organise asignificant part of the working class andyouth, we need regroupment: militants whoare not in parties, currents coming fromdifferent traditions and with differenthistories, coming from the far Left, from theCommunist and Socialist parties, fromecologist and alternative currents. Aregroupment which will have to confront thequestions that every party that begins torepresent an important sector of thepopulation has to face: questions ofgovernment, parliamentary majority,presence in local and regional councils,without betraying its anti-liberal principles,without compromising itself by allianceswhich would denature the struggle that hasbeen undertaken and would prevent newsocial conquests.

The abandonment of such an active unitarypolicy in France will have repercussions in

Europe. It is necessary to avoid ageneralization of a "French turn" which wouldput us on the margins of phenomena ofrecomposition in Europe. We do not need tomake the demonstration that in the countrywhere Trotskyist political forces haveacquired sizeable autonomous strength, they"freeze" any possibility of unitaryregroupment for an alternative on the left.

The end of the story has not yetbeen written

It is still possible to modify the policy of theLCR, and we are going to try to do that. Therewill be no unitary candidate in thepresidential election, and in these conditionsit is necessary that Olivier Besancenot ispresent. But it is still possible to discuss anapproach and an agreement for thelegislative elections in June. There will be 580candidates, there can be an agreement, sothat in 150 to 300 constituencies, the LCR,the PCF, the forces around José Bové, theunitary collectives which have survived theseturbulences (and there are many of them),would agree to present common candidates.It is of course necessary to have anagreement to defeat the Right, to defend ananti-liberal policy in complete independencein Parliament, not to take part in agovernment and a parliamentary majority onthe basis of social-liberal policies. The Frenchsituation is unstable.

If the Right wins, the entire Left, includingthe PS, will explode and have to be rebuilt. Ifthe Left wins, an agreement between part ofthe PS and the "centre" of the Right (Bayrouand the UDF) is possible, as in Italy orGermany. A "unitary turn" by the LCR, afterthe candidacy of Besancenot, is necessary.The failure to achieve unity for thepresidential election does not invalidate theneed to persevere with this type ofregroupment, on the level of the immediatesituation in France, but also, no doubt, for awhole period in Europe. If an agreement wasreached for the legislative elections in France,the anti-liberal Left would also become thenon-governmental left, since for the momentthe PCF does not envisage going into aSocialist government (if it changed its mind,the crisis in the party would be at its height,and once again thousands of militants wouldrise up against the leadership of the party. Itwould then be necessary to be there, in theprocess of discussion, to have some influenceon this crisis).


28

Farooq Tariq, general secretaryof the Labour Party Pakistan(LPP), was arrested without awarrant on June 5, 2007 at hisresidence in Lahore. Aposteriori, the Ministry of theInterior issued a three-monthdetention order against him. Inorder to further isolate him, hewas transferred to the prison ofBahawalpur. All visits to him areprohibited, except with the prioragreement of the Ministry of theInterior.

Several hundred people werearrested on suspicion on June 5thand 6th and many others aresubject to judicial procedures.The regime is trying to break byforce the democraticmobilizations which followedthe suspension on March 9th ofthe President of the SupremeCourt, Judge IftikharMohammed Chaudry. Hundredsof thousands of demonstratorstook to the streets to protestagainst this arbitrary measure.Repression by the regime was

already responsible for 41 deathsand many injured in Karachi onMay 12th and 13th. PresidentPervez Musharraf almostdecreed a state of emergency andno one knows how far themilitary regime is ready to go tostamp out the democraticcontestation.

Farooq Tariq was arrestedbecause he was fully engaged inthese mobilizations, in particularin support of the Lawyers'Movement that was created afterthe suspension of JudgeChaudry. Farooq Tariq is alsoknown for his solidarityactivities on the internationallevel. He contributed to theorganization of the World SocialForum of Karachi in 2006. Hetook an active part in otherWorld Forums, like those inMumbai (India) and Nairobi(Kenya), as well as EuropeanForums, including the last one inAthens (Greece). He is also anactivist of the international anti-war movement.

It may be mentioned that Farooqwas also arrested to stop hisparticipation in reception for CJin Lahore on May 4, 2007 anddetained for three days. Talkingto media men and partymembers after his arrest at policestation Farooq has said that hewas arrested without anywarrants. He said the state andits illegal tactics cannot forcehim to bow and vowed tocontinue struggle againstdictatorship.

Pakistan

Farooq Tariq arrested - again!5 June 2007

Khaliq Shah

In less than four weeks Farooq Tariq, General Secretary Labour Party Pakistan, was arrestedsecond time in early hours of Tuesday, 5th June 2007 by a heavy contingent of Punjab Police fromhis residence in Lahore. He has been detained at Harbanspura Police Station, Lahore.

Meanwhile his advocate hasfiled a habeas corpus petitionagainst the police in the court ofSessions. Judge Rauf Sheikh hasissued a notice to SHOHarbanispura Police Station toproduce Farooq Tariq at 9amWednesday 6th June. SyedMohammad Shah, PresidentLahore Bar Association andsenior advocate Ejaz Hussainwill appear in court on behalf ofthe petitioner.

Pakistan

Appeal for the release of Farooq Tariq

Labour Party thinks that theimmediate reason of FarooqTariq arrest is his proactive rolein the Lawyers movement,participation in 4 May Pressconference against PEMRA(Pakistan electronic MediaRegulatory Authority) actionagainst the media as well asannouncement of Free MediaConference being organized byLLP on 6th June at Lahore PressClub.

A number of political parties,organization, trade unions havecondemned the arrest anddemanded immediate release ofFarooq Tariq. Several politicalworkers, leaders and friendshave visited Farooq Tariq atpolice station to show solidarity.LPP is going to hold a protestdemonstration against his arrestat 5 pm Tuesday in front ofLahore press club.

Khaliq Shah writes on behalf of theLabour Party - Pakistan

The situation is all the moreworrying because the regimedoes not hesitate to useintolerable measures againstFarooq Tariq and otherprisoners:

psychological pressures,inhuman conditions of detention(over-populated cells in very hotweather, lack of water andsanitary facilities...), prohibitionof visits ETC.

We call for the respect of humanrights and freedoms in Pakistan.

We demand the immediaterelease of Farooq Tariq and allthose who have been imprisonedfor having taken part in thedemocratic mobilizations.

First signatures:

Gilbert Achcar, Professor, SOAS,University of London, Great Britain

Daniel Bensaïd, University of Paris VIII,France.

Olivier Besancenot, spokesperson of theLCR (France)

Vincent Charbonnier, trade unionist(SNASUB-FSU, Vénissieux), France.

Jean Pierre Debourdeau, FSU, vice-president of Attac 21, France

Chris Harman (editor InternationalSocialism journal), Great Britain

Alain Krivine, former member of theEuropean Parliament, spokesperson of theLCR, France

Luc Quintin, Physiology (CNRS UMR5123), France

Pierre Rousset, Europe Solidaire sansFrontieres (ESSF), France.

Roseline Vachetta, former member of theEuropean Parliament, spokesperson of theLCR, France.

Sign this appeal now and getothers to do the same.

For the immediate release of Farooq Tariq and the other prisoners detained after the wave ofrepression of the democratic movement in Pakistan!


29

I protested again and again forbeing kept in a private placeinstead of a police station. Butthe two armed men told me thatis a order by my high ups andthey have to obey the orders. Thetwo police officers who came tocollect me late at night in plaincloths told me that our seniorpolice officers are very angrywith you because of yourpetition in the court.

I was brought back to the samepolice station and then putbehind bars with over 13 personscharged for different criminalactivities.

On June 6th, I was againremoved from the police stationand sent to another private placenear Harbancepura policestation. By then, the police hadgot my detention order from thehome department of Punjab forthree months and had to tell theSession Judge that morning thatFarooq has already been sent toBahawalpur jail.

The Bahawalpur is nearly 450kilometre from Lahore. The jailis famous for its cruelties andstrictness. Most of the prominentpolitical prisoners have beenkept in this jail during the pastmany years.

The police van had anotherpolitical prisoner from PakistanPeoples Party when we left at 12

Pakistan

Farooq TariqReleased!

19 June 2007

Most importantly, a writepetition at Lahore High Courtwas to be heard on 20th June.One of the most prominentadvocates and former presidentof Supreme Court BarAssociation of Pakistan AbidHassan Minto was to argue mycase against the detention. AbidHassan Minto is also head ofNational Workers Party andconvener of the Awami JamhooriTehreek (Peoples DemocraticMovement), a left alliance ofseven political parties. LabourParty Pakistan is part of thealliance.

Police came to my house on 4thJune at 4am to pick me up.While at police stationHarbancepura, I repeatedlyasked if there was any formaldetention order. There was noreply by the local police officer.He kept telling me that you willbe free this evening and that atthe most in three days. That liewas told to over 600 politicalprisoners who were rounded upfrom their houses, in the sameway and at the same time.

Our advocates that includedSyed Mohammed Shah,president District Courts BarAssociation and Ijaz Hussain.The advocates went to LahoreSession Judge that morning andfiled a petition for my recoveryfrom illegal detention.

Unfortunately, the Session Judgedid not issue orders for a bailiffto recover me, but issued noticesto the police for the nextmorning. This was the turningpoint for the change of policebehaviour towards me.

Until they received a courtnotice, the police officers werepolite and I was even allowed tokeep my mobile and receivevisits of my comrades andfriends at the police station. Themy ordeal has started. I wasimmediately removed from theHarbancepura police station andthen after nearly two hours in amoving police van, I was finallyde-loaded at Bagbanpura policestation.

After spending the night at thispolice station, I was once againasked to sit in a police van whichdrove me to a private place. Thiswas the time when police had totell the Session Judge thatFarooq Tariq is not arrested andis not with them. I was in fact notwith them in formal terms. I waslike a kidnapped person, not byprivate gangs, but stategangsters. The place belonged toan elected councillor of rulingparty Muslim League. It was astore of a plastics factory whereI was kept for the next 24 hours,under the strict vigilance of twoarmed men from local police.

Pakistan

The 15 JailDays Under the Musharaf militarydictatorship

Farooq Tariq

It was one of worst jail experiences I had during my 30 year of activism. I was released after 15days when my detention orders were withdrawn by the home secretary of the Punjab governmenton 19th June. It was not due to a mercy of the government but our local and international massivesolidarity campaign. Hundreds of protest letters have been sent to General Musharaf with dozensof faxes and messages of protest to different provincial authorities during the solidarity campaignagainst my detention.

Lahore

Dear All!

After 15 days of detention,Labour Party General SecretaryGeneral Farooq Tariq wasreleased on Tuesday (19 June)from Kot Lakhpat Jail, Lahoreby the Government of Punjab.

Dozens of Party workers,members and some civil societyactivists received him warmlyoutside the jail. We are thankfulto all comrades, friends and wellwishers who extended supportand solidarity to Farooq Tariqduring his detention andlaunched struggles andcampaigns for his release . Adetailed e-mail regarding his twoweek detention will soon becirculated by Farooq Tariqhimself. Meanwhile FarooqTariq is going to hold a pressconference at Lahore Press Clubat 5 pm Tuesday.

Warmly,

On behalf of LPP

Khaliq Shah

one hour before they were ableto do that because of myresistance. I told them I am notcriminal, I am not going to betreated like criminals. I am notrunning away from here in thepresence of dozens ofpolicemen.

After whole night travel, wearrived at Kot Lakhpat jail inLahore. Here I was put togetherwith other political prisonerswho were brought in from otherdistricts. I shared a very smallcell, small than Bahalpur jailwith eight others politicalprisoners. But the difference wasthe out side door was open andwe could stroll in the lawn of theQasuri Chakki number three.

A 52 year political activistSarmad Mansoor from thePakistan Peoples Party had dieda day earlier in this jaildispensary after he was deniedproper medical facilities. It wasmurder by the government ofPunjab with the help of jailauthorities. He was arrestedfrom a hospital in Gujrat districtand was admitted to a jaildispensary with no adequatefacilities. He died of a heartattack in this dispensary on 14thJune. When I arrived on 15thJune morning, all the 32 politicalprisoners from different politicalparties were on hunger strike, soI join in as well.

Here the next five day till myrelease on 19th June was OK.We had to sleep inside the verytiny cell but from morning tillevening we were allowed tomove around. But no one fromoutside was allowed to visit me.Although, on 16th June, severalcomrades waited outside the jailfor several hours with apermission to visit me, but werenot allowed to visit me.

After the death of one politicalprisoner which became anational issue, the attitude of thegovernment changed. Theystarted releasing the politicalprisoners. I was the last politicalprisoner to be released on 19thJune. While I was comingtowards the jail gate, I had tocollect the amount, I haddeposited at the jails accountant.


30

noon to Bahawalpur in thecompany of seven police men.The temperature was over 47degree and the driver was overspeeding the van. It was one ofthe worst travels I did during mylife. A heat wave with bumpyover speeding van was anexperience that I can not take offmy mind.

We arrived at 7pm andimmediately were sent to BlockA of Bahawalpur Jail.

There were four more politicalprisoners from Muslim League(N) who were there for threeweeks already. Noshad Hameed,an activist of MLN immediatelyshouted "Labour Party hasarrived". We both had shared thesame jail barrack at Lahore KotLakhpat jail in 2001.

We the two political prisonersfrom Lahore were put in separatecells. I asked the jail authoritiesthat allow us to share one cell."two are not allowed to shareone cell; they might be involvedin homosexual activities" I wastold by one jail warden. "It has tobe three or more than three orsingle in one cell" he told me.

Bahawalpur is one of most hotareas of Pakistan. We had toexperience that for next sevendays. I was alone in the cage.There was small room, a smallveranda and something you cancall a bath room. One woollenblanket was thrown inside thecell. That was to put on the floorto sleep, nothing else.

We were not allowed to bringany paper or pen. I had three pairof my Shalwar Qameez, thetraditional dress in Pakistan forsummer. No towel or tooth pasteand brush. I was like a lion in acage moving from one corner toanother all the time, then sittingin one place, eating what the jailhas to offer, something like food.It just remembered me of Lahorezoo where I normally go withmy 6 year old son Abdullah tosee the lions.

Next day in the evening, 22more political prisoners arrivedfrom Lahore to share these fourcells in Bloc A. I was absolute

pleased to see more people.Seven of them, all from PakistanPeoples Party were pushed in mycell. This ended my solitaryconfinement, much to mypleasure. At least there weresome to talk to.

We were sent to Bahawalpurfrom Lahore as a punishment.This was to isolate us from ourfriends, families and community.This was to teach us a lesson forour opposition to a militarydictatorship.

The Musharaf regime was actinglike his British colonial masterswho used to send the politicalprisoners to Andaman Islandswhile they ruled the Indian subcontinent for over 200 years.The Island was known incommon terminology as KalaPaani (black waters). Manyfreedom fighters that were sentthere never came back to theirhomes, most of them died whileserving the life long prisonterms.

This was to break our will tofight the military regime. Thiswas to tell us that we are in aprison and a prison in Pakistanunder military regime. Whenever we asked the jail wardens,please take us out of our cages tohave a little walk inside theBloc, they told us, it is a prisonand not a garden. The jailauthorities treated us likeanimals.

The heat wave went up to 52.The electricity always went off,some time 14 hours a day. Thefloor of the cell was heated allthe time. Even the water will beoff while the electricity went off.We had one fan and the air of thefan came down to the floor afterhours. It was only after threedays of protest that our defectedfan was changed with a betterone and one more fan wasinstalled in the veranda. We paidfrom our pockets for the fan. Itwas PPP leaders who had someamount deposited with the jailauthorities while they arrived.There was no newspaperallowed inside. So we weretotally blank from the outsideworld.

We had to go on hunger strikeafter four days in the cell. Thiswas to demand water. Onemorning there was absolute nowater coming in. Earlier, therewas very little water coming infrom the pipe but we could fill alittle plastic bottle in half anhour. This paid off. The jailmanagement had to change thepipes and replace the age oldmotor. The water problem was atleast solved. The only remedy tosave the body from heat was toput some water on the body allthe times.

On the sixth day, my two elderbrothers Ahmad Yaseen andAhmed Saeed were able to visitme at Bahawalpur jail. They gotthe permission to visit me fromhome department in Lahore.They brought fruit, soft drinksand some cloths, tooth paste andbrush etc. they also depositedsome amount in my jail account,so I could order some basicsfrom the jail shop. It was myfirst contact from the outsideworld. My brothers told me thatI was going to be shifted toLahore Kot Lakhpat Jailtomorrow. They had heard thenews from the home department.

Comrades from LPP in Lodhran,a city 20 kilometre fromBahalpur, had tried their best tocontact me; they were able tosend some fruit and sweetsinside the cell the next morning.The comrades were close friendsof an assistant jailsuperintendent of Bahalwalpurjail, but he was unable to helpme. He came several times tovisit me and asked me what canI do for you, I always asked himto bring me some blank papers towrite down something, but hewas not able to do that. Nextmorning when he arrived, Iasked him if he can arrange mytravel to Lahore at night timeinstead day time if I shift toLahore jail. That is what he wasable to do and I left to Lahorenext evening in a police van at11pm. This was to avoid the heatof the day time.

Police at the jail gate waswaiting for me to take me toLahore. They tried to hand cuffme. I refused to do that. It took

Pakistan


31

While I was standing there, Iwas approached by one politicalprisoner. He was shoutingalready that I want to see Farooqof Labour Party Pakistan. WhenI heard this, I told him, it is me,he could not recognize meimmediately but then he huggedme several times. He was Iqbalfrom India. An Indian prisoner,whom I had met in 2001 in thesame jail. On his request, I wasable to send a Human RightsCommission Pakistan delegationto jail afterward. The HRCPdelegation was able to help inrelease of several Indianprisoners who had completedthere sentences but waiting foran exchange of prisonersbetween the two countries.

Iqbal has heard that I am in jailand he also knew that I could bereleased today, so he was able tocome out of his barrack to greetme in the lobby. We spoke forsome minutes; he wanted me todo the same. Get some Indianprisoners out of jail. I promisedto do what I could do. I also gavehim some five hundred Rupeesto buy some fruit for the Indianprisoners. This was touchingtime for me. I was rememberedeven after six years by the Indianprisoners. Good work is notforgotten for long times.

Outside the jail, several dozensof LPP and social organization sactivists were waiting towelcome me. They had heardonly few hours earlier that I bereleased today. "Go MusharafGo" was the chant that mighteven be heard by people insidethe jail. The red flags of LPPwere waving and slogans tocontinue the struggle againstmilitary dictatorship were raised.Many more were waiting atShimla Pehari Chouck near LPPoffice. I was brought to LPPoffice in a procession. At 5pm, Iaddressed a press conference atLahore Press Club. So straightfrom jail to the thick of politicalactivities.

Farooq Tariq is the general secretaryof Labour Party Pakistan.

The convention was dominatedby the desire to build a strongleft opposition to the social-liberal government of Socrates.The openly neo-liberal policiesconducted by the government ofthe Portuguese Socialist Party aregiving rise to widespread uneaseand discontent in the popularlayers of society.

This was expressed in thegeneral strike which took placeon May 31st against themeasures of deregulation in thecivil service. Although it is truethat this strike had a limitedimpact, it nevertheless made itpossible to demonstrate the realnature of social liberalism whenit comes to power and itsdetermination to push forwardwith policies which always endup by provoking the return topower of the hardline right.

The Fifth Convention of the Blocbrought together more than 600delegates from all over thecountry who represented the4,200 members of theorganization (Portugal has about10.5 million inhabitants). Thedebates were concentratedaround four tendency motions,representative of the internalplurality of the Bloc. Motion A,which brought together thethree founding organizations ofthe Bloc (the APSR, Portuguesesection of the FourthInternational; the ex-Maoist UDPand Politica XXI, which camefrom the Portuguese CommunistParty) and many members whodid not come from theseorganizations presented adocument entitled "The SocialistLeft as an Alternative to theSocrates government". Thisdocument laid out the main lines

that should be a priority for afighting left which puts at centrestage the struggle againstclimate change from an anti-capitalist perspective and thestruggle against all the injusticescaused by capitalism. Thistendency had the support ofnearly 75 per cent of thedelegates.

Motion B, entitled "For aPlatform of Socialist Democracy"was put forward by a groupwhose origins are in variousorganizations of the Portuguesefar left of the 1970s. This motioninsisted in its theses on the needto deepen the internalorganization of the Bloc and oncorrectly handling internalpluralism. This motion had thesupport of 5 per cent of thedelegates. Motion C, entitled"Everyone in the struggle,everyone in the streets!" wasdefended, along with someindependents, by theRuptura/FER current, anorganization linked to the LITtendency (International WorkersLeague, "Morenoite" Trotskyism).

This motion was the most criticaltowards the outgoing leadershipof the Bloc (essentially Motion A)and centred its attacks on thesupposed absence of internalpluralism in the organizationand on the adhesion of the Blocto the European Left Party(Ruptura/FER asked in particularthat the Bloc propose within theELP the expulsion ofRifondazione Comunista for itssupport to the Prodigovernment). This motion,which had the support of 12 percent of the delegates, alsoproposed that there should be arapprochement with the

Portuguese Communist Party(PCP), in particular in trade unionwork.

Lastly, Motion D (3 per cent ofthe delegates) was presentedunder the title "The Bloc for asocial majority of the Left", andwas defended by a group ofmilitants from the town ofMatosinhos. This motion insistedon the necessity to link the Blocmore closely to the socialmovements, but its proposalswere very similar to those ofMotion A.

The Congress debates were veryrich, first of all in the discussionof the different motions, then inthe debates on the statutes andfinally for the election of the 80members of the new nationalleadership. The composition ofthis leadership is the following:

Motion A: 404 votes - 62representatives 74.5 per cent

Motion B: 24 votes - 4representatives 4.42 per cent

Motion C: 78 votes - 12representatives 14.3 per cent

Motion D: 17 votes - 2representatives 3.13% per cent

There were 3 blank votes and 6invalid votes.

It should be noted that ourcomrade Francisco Louça of theAPSR was elected spokespersonof the Bloc. The Left Bloc cameout of this congressstrengthened, in particular in itsability to articulate different lefttraditions without howeverlosing sight of a clearly anti-capitalist perspective.

Portugal

Fifth Convention of theLeft BlocRaul Camargo

On June 2-3, the Fifth national convention of the Left Bloc took place in Lisbon. Since its creationin 1999 this unitary organization of the anti-capitalist left in Portugal has strongly consolidatedand implanted itself in society and on the political landscape, becoming today a significant forcewhich has more than 4,000 members, hundreds of local councillors, 8 members of parliamentand an active presence in struggles and in the social movements.

international viewpoint · palestine - philippines - italy iv390 - june 2007 international...

Documents