ON CLASS STRUGGLE AND
REACTIONARY ELECTIONS IN FRANCE
The purpose
of these notes is none other than to provide material that serves the
discussion of the different issues we raise.
On the
early elections to the National Assembly called by Macron after his party's
failure in the elections for the European Parliament on June 9, much has been
written by journalists and political analysts in the reactionary media, the
meaning of which can be summed up by what The Wall Street Journal (USA) said
after the first round of voting on June 30:
“If you are
in a casino with Emmanuel Macron, do not imitate his bets” (…)
As for the
parts we have underlined from the American newspaper's comment, we agree
because it corresponds to the results achieved by Macron's party, since these
express the spontaneous rejection of his policy and the institutions he
represents. Regarding the opportunity of the call for early elections and the
objectives that Macron has set himself, we consider that TWSJ does not hit the
mark. Undoubtedly, the reactionary Macron is a gambler, who deals the cards and
keeps the aces up his sleeve to win the electoral game, whatever the results of
this, in absolute or relative figures. Power that he is invested with by the
Constitution of the Fifth Republic of 1958.
For the above, we raise the following question:
Is there a possibility in these early
legislative elections in France of a change in the form of government, from a
reactionary bourgeois-democratic regime to a fascist regime, of the French
State, a State of bourgeois dictatorship? But, if the answer to the question is
negative, let us formulate the problem in another way: But has the French
president put his sovereign power in these elections?
Before
trying to answer the question posed above, let us look at some substantive
things:
SOME SUBSTANTIVE THINGS
France, as
an imperialist country of the second world, has an economy centered on the
monopoly of non-state property, politically it develops a bourgeois democracy
of increasing restriction of rights, it is a reactionary liberalism. Therefore,
the main contradiction in France is the contradiction between the bourgeoisie
and the proletariat, which is resolved through the socialist revolution.
France,
like the other countries of the second world, are non-superpower imperialist
powers, that is, with less economic, political and military power like Japan,
Germany, France, Italy, etc. that have contradictions with the superpowers
because they endure, for example, the devaluation of the dollar, military
restrictions and political impositions; these imperialist powers want to take
advantage of the conflict between the superpowers to emerge as new superpowers,
they also unleash wars of aggression against oppressed nations and among them,
in addition, there are also sharp contradictions (see International Line of the
PCP, 1988).
Lenin, on
the process of reaction of the capitalist States, says that these follow the
process of centralization of power, of strengthening of the “executive power”,
of its bureaucratic and military machine to the detriment of parliament as its
common characteristic features, in a process that is repeated in the 19th
century and continues in the 20th century, although, with the passage from
pre-monopoly capitalism or free competition to monopoly capitalism, in a more
varied, slow and extensive way.
Lenin
teaches that: that the monopoly in economy corresponds to the reaction and
violence in all the lines of politics. That in the imperialist phase, at a
certain moment the immense power of the bourgeois State merges with the power
of the gigantic monopolies in the economy and all the other organizations of
bourgeois and class society follow this tendency. The different bourgeois
organizations and parties are incorporated into the state apparatus.
HISTORY
After the
First World War, there was a crisis of bourgeois democracy and parliamentarism
(Mariátegui) and then the phenomenon of fascism occurred. After the defeat of
fascism in the Second World War, in the process of the bourgeois State, there
was a new restructuring of the State in the imperialist countries, on the path
of centralization of power in the executive, to varying degrees, as a gradual
displacement of parliamentarism by the power of the executive.
And, after
the Second World War, the French imperialist State has had two restructurings
on its path of reactionary, following the tendency towards presidential
absolutism. Therefore, it is necessary to take a look at the development of the
national and international class struggle in that period.
During the
Second World War, the people, led by the Communist Party, developed guerrilla
warfare and rose up in armed insurrections against the Nazi occupation and
against the collaborationist Vichy regime in part of France, until 1944. The
civil war of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie “was inserted into the
international war and, for them, civil war and international war became one.”
But in
France, unlike in the countries of Eastern Europe, where “the reactionary
elements in these countries were uprooted by the iron plough of the Soviet Red
Army,” the opposite happened. “The reactionary elements” obtained the support
of the armies of the “Western Allies,” who diverted their march towards Nazi
Germany to enter Paris and help De Gaulle, in order to snatch from the
proletariat and the people the fruits of victory in the war against fascism.
De Gaulle,
in the service of revisionism, which usurped the leadership of the PCF,
established the coalition government of the National Front on May 8, 1945.
According
to Chairman Mao, “To say that there was no civil war in these countries is to
look at the problem from a formal point of view and to refuse to see the real
nature of the war” (Chairman Mao Tsetung, Reading Notes on the Handbook of
Political Economy of the Soviet Union, 1960). And, we add, not to see the
capitulation of revisionism.
On the
betrayal of revisionism, the Communist Party of China under the personal
leadership of Chairman Mao also stated:
“Since the
Second World War, the international communist movement, while developing
greatly, has produced its antithesis within its own ranks, namely, a
revisionist countercurrent opposed to socialism, Marxism-Leninism and the
proletarian revolution. This countercurrent was primarily represented first by
Browder, later by Tito and now by Khrushchev. Khrushchev's revisionism is
nothing other than the continuation and development of the revisionism of
Browder and Tito” (THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION AND KHRUSHCHEV'S REVISIONISM,
COMMENTARY ON THE OPEN LETTER OF THE CC OF THE CPSU (VIII) by the Editorial
Staff of Renmin Ribao and the Editorial Staff of Hongqi Magazine, March 31,
1964).
Within this
revisionist countercurrent, “represented at that time by Browder, we locate the
French revisionists headed by Thorez at that time, who would later follow in
the wake of Khrushchev’s revisionism. As the CCP document cited above says:
“With the
formation of the international and national anti-fascist united front during
the Second World War, he became obsessed with the “democracy,” “progress” and
“good sense” of the bourgeoisie, he totally bowed down to the bourgeoisie and
degenerated into a capitulationist from head to toe.”
Acting like
Browder, these miserable revisionists, headed by Thorez, betrayed the
proletariat and the French people who had given their blood in the war of
resistance against fascism and for the development of the proletarian
revolution in France, the socialist revolution.
The French
Communist Party changed its colour, going from a party of the proletariat to a
bourgeois workers' party. Capitulating before the bourgeoisie, instead of
continuing "the armed struggle, breaking the old state machine and
establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat" that was implicit in the
international war (Chairman Mao), they became part of the government of
"national union" of the French imperialist bourgeoisie, headed by De
Gaulle, supported by the armed forces of the "Western allies." As the
French comrades write in their call to boycott the reactionary elections of June
29 and July 7:
"Our
class, the working class, is today certainly combative, but disorganized and
without direction. It lost its capacity to give a coherent political
expression, autonomous from the bourgeoisie, when the French
"Communist" Party itself became a party of the bourgeoisie."
The
Communist Party of China led by Chairman Mao Tsetung, in the struggle against
revisionism, stated:
“The events
after the Second World War once again demonstrate that the main component of
the bourgeois state machine is the armed forces and not parliament. Parliament
is only a decoration, a screen for bourgeois rule. Adopting or abolishing the
parliamentary system, granting greater or lesser power to parliament, adopting
one or another type of electoral law, all this is always determined by the
bourgeoisie in accordance with the needs and interests of its domination (…)
For example, after the Second World War, the French monopoly bourgeoisie has
revised the electoral law twice, in each case causing a considerable decrease
in the parliamentary seats of the French Communist Party. In the parliamentary
elections of 1946, the PCF obtained 182 seats. However, in 1951, as a result of
the revision of the electoral law by the monopoly bourgeoisie, the number of
seats of the PCF was drastically reduced to 103, that is, it lost 79 seats. In
the parliamentary elections of 1956, the PCF won 150 seats. But for the 1958
elections, the monopoly bourgeoisie revised the electoral law again, and as a
result, the number of seats of the PCF was suddenly reduced to 10, that is, 140
seats were lost" (THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION AND KHRUSHCHEV'S
REVISIONISM).
Also, what
is applicable to the revisionist PCF of Thorez and his followers, in the same
document he stated:
"The
events after the Second World War also show that if the communist leaders
adhere to the "parliamentary road" and fall victim to the incurable
disease of "parliamentary cretinism", they will not only be
disappointed but will inevitably sink into the swamp of revisionism, burying
the revolutionary cause of the proletariat."
The restructuring of the French State
Continuing
with the restructuring of the French State, we say:
The process
of centralization of the bourgeois state has been studied by non-Marxist
authors from the point of view of constitutional law and state theory, such as
Susanne Benöhr in her research “Das faschistische Verfassungsrecht Italiens aus
der Sicht von Gerhard Leibholz, Zu den Ursprüngen der Parteienstaatslehre” (The
fascist constitutional law of Italy from the point of view of Gerhard Leibholz,
On the origin of the doctrine of parties”, 2001), this author is the father of
the theory of parties in force in Germany. By order of the Federal
Constitutional Court, where as a result of her research the following is
written:
“In other
words: Leibholz's theory on the party state was based on the analysis of
fascist constitutional law, in particular of the fascist constitutional law.
constitutional position of the PNF, and would lack the elements of fascist
constitutional law. The idea of integrating the parties into the constitution
in a mediating and integrative manner was based on the example of the fascist
party. The same applies to the organizational integration of the PNF. parties in
the constitutional structure The immanent barrier that the drafter of the Basic
Law had imposed on Leibholz on the one hand, and the exemplary role that the
PNF played on the other, can be clarified by the following quote: The
difference between a total state and a Western-style democracy is The only
truth is that with the totalitarian state we are dealing with a one-party state
and with a Western-style democracy with a two-three-party or multi-party state
(Leibholz, People and State). in German Constitutional Law, in: Ill. (as note
96), pp. 7-76,”.
The process
of the imperialist bourgeois state in France follows one of the two possible
forms, that of executive absolutism concretized as presidential absolutism. The
other form is that of fascism, which we will not deal with here. In France,
this form of reactionary bourgeois state with centralization of power in the
executive, to the detriment of parliament, takes a classic form as presidential
absolutism.
The first reconstruction of the bourgeois
dictatorship after World War II occurred with the Constitution of the Fourth
Republic. The
1946 constitution, similar to that of 1875, which led to a crisis of
parliamentarism between the wars, provided for a head of state and a cabinet of
ministers responsible to parliament. The Fourth Republic developed amidst
“minor government crises”, as during the validity of the previous Constitution
of 1875. The Algerian war and the blockade of the island of Corsica occurred in
1958 and the President of the Republic, Rene Coty, called General de Gaulle
back to resolve the crisis. Thus, the second restructuring of the French
imperialist bourgeois State after World War II took place, the new Constitution
of the Fifth Republic, which is still in force today.
The second restructuring of the French
imperialist bourgeois State after World War II. The Constitution of the Fifth Republic of
1958, amended in 1962, as regards the indirect election by electoral college of
the President of the Republic, in order to establish his direct election, leads
to the second restructuring of the French imperialist bourgeois State, with
which the reactionary nature of the bourgeois State is concretized as the
centralization of power in the President, in the manner of an Orleanist
sovereign (Chartre of 1830, with King Louis-Philippe - Orleans dynasty).
With the
new constitution a “bastard republic” is established, with a president who has
the power to arbitrate over the Executive and Parliament, who is thus above the
political parties and can have laws passed by his own decision, by means of a
plebiscite and has the power to dissolve Parliament, declare a “state of
exception”, which as the fascist Carl Schmitt said, whoever has the power to
declare a state of exception exercises sovereignty. In this situation, it is
necessary to point out that the imperialist bourgeois faction in power has
secured control of this presidential institution, turning the president into a
“republican monarch” and the bourgeois republic into a “republican monarchy”
(“bastard republic”).
ON THE QUESTION RAISED AT THE BEGINNING
After the
long digression above, we continue to address what is related to the
introductory question:
Much has
been discussed about the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly and the
calling of new elections by French President Macron, on the same night of the
elections of June 9th for the European Parliament. As is known, Macron's party
was defeated and Marine Le Pen's Rassemblement National (RN) party, headed by
Bardelle, achieved victory with more than 32% of the votes, thus imposing
itself on all the other parties of the French political spectrum participating
in the elections.
Macron's
measure has been branded by some as unnecessary, as a political gaffe, as an
irresponsible act of unleashing an unnecessary political crisis, endangering
French democracy and the European Union. All this can only be explained by the
immense power that the president has according to the French Constitution of
1958 and by his narcissism. The immense power of the president is true,
according to the Constitution, as we will continue to discuss later, the
president has practically the powers of a sovereign like Louis Philippe of
Orleans.
The
introductory question that we have raised, is appropriate to ask in order to
know what President Macron is pursuing with the dismissal of the Executive -
Prime Minister and all his ministers - and the Legislative Assembly, to unmask
the revisionists and opportunists of all colors such as those grouped within
the so-called "New Popular Front" or those not grouped in it and to
use in the agiprop among the masses.
We believe
that Macron has faced two alternatives: a) win the current elections in the
second round, which is the important one, with a republican front, which is in
place after the first round on June 30, or b) give way to a government of
cohabitation with the RN in order to “disenchant” it by integrating it as a
government under its tutelage. The latter, so that the RN – the continuation of
the FN of old Le Pen, founded by ex-collaborators of the Vichy regime and
ex-French members of the Nazi SS – loses the “enchantment” it has for voters,
since it has not been a government until now and therefore does not have the
popular rejection, expression of the proletariat-bourgeoisie contradiction, as
masses-government. And, in addition, in the three years that Macron still has
as president, to complete the integration or adaptation of the RN to the
current constitutional regime in order to maintain the political “stability” of
the bourgeois dictatorship. It should be added that Macron's sovereign power is
not only over the parties and the assembly, but he also keeps the Defence and
Foreign Affairs departments for himself. This means that there is no danger for
Macron's current commitments regarding the war or the policy of the imperialist
alliance of the EU, "Europeanism".
According
to the comments in the bourgeois media, by bringing forward the legislative
elections, Macron intends to “unite the entire French nation against the
extreme right”, represented by the RN, the renamed party of Le Pen, the
National Front, which is presented as the greatest danger to democracy, Europe,
etc. Following their patterns in the big bourgeoisie, the most diverse
opportunists and revisionists have grouped together in the “New Popular Front”,
in remembrance of the “Popular Front” of before the Second World War, of the
fight against fascism, to defend the bourgeois-democratic form of government of
bourgeois dictatorship.
IN REALITY THE QUESTION WE POSED WHEN WE BEGAN
TO OUTLINE THESE NOTES HAS ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED TO A LARGE EXTENT
After the
first round of the elections on Sunday 7 July, the Belgian newspaper "De
Tijd" commented on Monday: "Ultimately, these results do not say much
about the final distribution of seats in Parliament. Now comes the second
round, and "then tactical considerations come into play when
choosing." Voting game. If an RN candidate makes it to the second round -
which is not a problem given the results of the first round - the other parties
usually unite to defeat him.
The only
question now is which side can beat the RN rival in the electoral districts.
»Macron expected his alliance to succeed. However, he was surprised by the
rapid formation of a Left Front that occurred immediately after his
announcement of early elections," explains the newspaper. "Macron now
risks having to cede the initiative to the left if his candidate comes
third." But he clearly overestimated his strength." This is not true,
because it is the majority of NFA candidates who have given up their place to
the Macronists, except for those of the so-called FI who hypocritically want to
show themselves as loyal to their voters but will ultimately end up pushing the
cart of the "republican front."
But the
newspaper El País of Madrid clarifies what is expressed in the last paragraph
of the Belgian's comment, when it says:
»El País«
The
National Assembly's victory in the first round of parliamentary elections
places the blame on other parties. "Either they unite in the second round
to defeat Marine Le Pen's RN, or they risk paving the way for a far-right
government in France within a week."
The
newspaper sees possible difficulties in forming a front against the right due
to political differences, but at the same time states: "Fortunately, there
seems to be a will to overcome these differences." "El País"
also refers to Macron's call for a solution: to form a "broad, clearly
democratic and republican union."
Now, that
is already clear, as we anticipated, the NFP has withdrawn the majority of
candidates and the Macronists have not reciprocated to the same extent. Thus,
in practice, the "republican front" proposed by Macron has been
formed. In passing, we affirm that this clarifies that Macron's call for early
elections is not only about imposing "legitimacy" at the polls of his
policy rejected by the majority, but that his sights are set on the
presidential elections of 2027. And that it was not a hasty or unnecessary
measure.
We add that
the imperialist bourgeoisie of the various countries of Europe discovered early
on the importance of using the natural fear of fascism among the masses, both
to restrict rights and freedoms, from freedom of conscience and the right of
opinion to the right of asylum, and to harness the masses to the bourgeois
State by calling on them to go to the polls and vote against the danger of
"fascism" or the "ultra right." In some cases, the
intelligence services have facilitated with personnel, weapons and means the
formation of "clandestine" neo-Nazi or neo-fascist armed groups to
attack immigrants and even members of established parties.
In almost
all imperialist countries, the bourgeois state itself finances these so-called
“extreme right” parties according to its electoral laws and also provides them
with personnel from the internal intelligence service to adapt them to the
general policy of the state, under the pretext of monitoring their conformity
to the constitution.
These
“extreme right” or pro-Nazi or neo-fascist parties serve for a time as the
“democratic juice” of the opposition government. This is clear if one looks at
the path followed by the parties of this sputum in post-war Europe, such as in
Italy, Germany, France, etc. One should not forget how the process of
“denazification” took place in Germany, where the ex-Nazis were integrated into
the institutions of “democracy” by the Adenauer government, or in France, where
many of the ex-officials of the Vichy Republic regime have successively
occupied important posts in the IV and V French Republic.
The RN
seeks a more open reactionary approach to the bourgeois state, focuses more
openly than other bourgeois parties on the danger of immigration for French
“identity” and is in favour of the same policy of French imperialism of
defending its imperialist interests by keeping its distance from US imperialism
and NATO, and of France’s own military and atomic policy and closer ties with
Russia to defend its zones of influence in Africa and the Middle East, which
have been taken from it by US imperialism and the other imperialist powers. For
this reason, like the AfD in Germany, it presents itself as “supporters of
peace” and “against war”. The RN “wants a Europe à la carte” say the bourgeois
media.
Now, in the
second round, which is the most important for determining the composition of
the Legislative Assembly, the faction of French imperialism headed by Macron is
faced with the challenge of uniting all the forces opposed to the RN, including
the NFP. If the agreement and the redistribution of posts are reached and the
RN, headed by Le Pen's pawn, is defeated, there will be a government of these
forces. Thus, a "republican front" would have the right to put
forward a candidate for this faction of French imperialism in view of the
presidential elections of 2027. But Macron has planned an alternative B for a
"national unity", another face of collusion and struggle of the big
monopolistic bourgeoisie at a new level against the French people, that is,
"cohabitation" with the RN, if the latter obtains a parliamentary majority.
In order, as we have already said, to “disenchant” the RN in the eyes of the
masses (arena of contention), which represents the rival faction of the same
French monopoly bourgeoisie of the same class dictatorship, in order to regain
the sympathies of the voters for the 2027 elections. But, most importantly, for
the system to become the guardian or adoptive father of this faction of
imperialism in its adaptation to the Fifth Republic.
Macron is
taking this gamble knowing that in both cases a) or b) he will retain
governmental power for the reactionary bourgeois-democratic faction of French
imperialism. In this way, the "prime minister and the ministers of the
parliamentary majority as part of the executive branch subject to presidential
power" serve as a fuse for the president to unleash popular anger against
Macron's anti-popular policy. All this is due to the restructuring of the
French imperialist state carried out between 1958 and 1962 by De Gaulle.
Macron, as
head of the French imperialist state, first seeks to "legitimize" his
presidential power at the polls in the face of popular rejection of his
government's anti-worker and anti-popular measures and the defeat in the
elections for the European Parliament. He resorts to using the fear of the
masses against fascism, which worked for one of his predecessors, Chirac, to be
elected in the second round with more than 82% of the votes against the old Le
Pen, and for himself, to be elected in the second round against his daughter Le
Pen, in the second round on two occasions.
Macon,
regardless of the results, can maintain his power and govern based on the
“legitimacy” of the results of the “last popular consultation”, either with a
government of “consensus” or “cohabitation”, a deceitful “legitimacy” granted
to him by this “bastard republic” of the dictatorship of the imperialist
bourgeoisie. With this “legitimacy” he will continue with his government of the
big monopolistic bourgeoisie, with his reactionary anti-popular and anti-worker
policy. Let us see what the French Constitution of the Fifth Republic says
about presidential power
According
to the Constitution of the Fifth Republic: “In addition to the usual
prerogatives of a President of the Republic, such as the appointment of the
Prime Minister and members of the government (Article 8), as well as the
presidency of the Council of Ministers and the promulgation of laws (Articles 9
and 10), the President also has the power to submit to a referendum any bill
that is related to the public powers (Article 11), which gives the President
the power to ask the people for direct legitimacy in case the parliament does
not agree with him. He can also dissolve the National Assembly (Article 12) as
well as obtain exceptional power when the safeguarding of the institutions and
the nation is in danger (Article 16).”
The
legislative power, composed of the National Assembly and the Senate, has the
power to vote on laws and control the exercise of power. It can, if it so
wishes, revoke the government by not attributing its confidence to it. The
Senate examines the laws and in case of disagreement, this last institution
always has the last word.
But, we
add, do not confuse, the president of the republic is untouchable and has in
his hands the policy of Defense (war) and Foreign Affairs. And, the
“government” has the function of “fuse” of the president. This means, the
“government” can be changed but not the president, who can always dissolve the
parliament and appoint a new government.