From La Riposte, France.
On May 19th, there was a large demonstration organised by French police unions, ostensibly under the pretext of honouring two officers killed on duty, but in reality in support of a more sinister authoritarian agenda. After the presidential candidate of the French Communist Party (PCF) participated in the demonstration, the Marxist website La Riposte published the following article:
Under the guise of paying tribute to the members of the security forces killed in previous weeks, the demonstration on 19 May in front of the National Assembly, was a in fact a political rally. Its aim was to highlight the ideological and political agenda of the far-right police unions. And that is exactly what it did.
The slogan attracting most media attention was, “The problem of the police is the judiciary!” In an interview on May 10, Fabien Vanhemelryck, leader of the police union Alliance, said, “a large part of the justice system has a certain ideology [according to which] it is forbidden to put someone in prison”. According to him, the justice system “favours the villain against the citizen” and defends an “anti-police” ideology, to the point that France is sinking into a situation of “near chaos, an even insurrection”.
Joined by many high-profile personalities of the right and the extreme right, this gathering, in parallel with recent threats of coup d’état from retired and active soldiers, highlights the rise of authoritarian and fascist tendencies within the forces within the police and the armed forces in France. Encouraged by the government’s “security” policies, these trends pose a serious threat to democracy and to the fight against austerity.
The participation and support of several leaders of the PCF, including Fabien Roussel, have deeply shocked many activists and supporters of the party, both current and potential. And for good reason. On every continent of the world, massive movements like Black Lives Matter are rising up against the brutality and racism within the police. In France, the police has intervened violently against trade union demonstrations, intimidating, gassing and bludgeoning peaceful demonstrators. The yellow vest (gilets jaunes) movement and the millions of people who supported it witnessed the use of extremely dangerous weapons that left dozens of protesters disfigured and mutilated. The Alliance union, let us not forget, unreservedly approved of this police violence. It has constantly insulted the yellow vests, calling them criminals and even, in one official statement, “sub-human beings”. This policing is not a “public service.” This is not the language of “workers in uniform.” It is closer to that of the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazis!
What is shocking is that the presidential candidate and other leaders of the PCF took part in a demonstration dominated by the National Alliance (formerly the National Front) and other far-right organisations. This is a major political mistake, which will have serious consequences not only for the presidential campaign, but also for the future of the PCF.
According to the “republican” myth, the police are at the service of citizens. Among its tasks, it is true, are the protection of persons and property and the fight against crime. However, the police force is not just a public service. It is an instrument of intimidation and repression, which protects and perpetuates the capitalist order.
In the current context, where capitalism means permanent austerity, the stability of the system and governmental power are increasingly based directly on the repressive power of the forces of law and order. Macron and the Interior Minister, Darmanin, are not against violence. It’s just that they want a monopoly of violence.
Massive investments are being made in over-arming the police and in surveillance technology, to the detriment of expenditure on the fight against crime, and also at the expense of police officers’ working conditions. There are 20 million hours of overtime still unpaid, yet there is no shortage of money to buy drones, armoured vehicles, water cannons and a whole arsenal of other dangerous weaponry.
The fact that Communist Party leaders gave moral and political backing to a reactionary authoritarian demonstration is serious. But there is also the question of the statements made by the PCF presidential candidate with regard to the judiciary and the role of the police and the army in society.
Firstly, let us be clear that, contrary to what some claim, security should not be considered as a “right-wing” subject, which the left should not touch. Insecurity – for women who return from work in the evening, for victims of burglaries, robberies, racist attacks, sexual harassment, and so on – is a real social problem. Just because the right wing and some media exaggerate this problem for political purposes does not mean that the PCF should ignore it. On the contrary, the PCF must present a programme on this subject – but not just any programme.
Fabien Roussel, the PCF presidential candidate has chosen to make security one of the main themes of his campaign and seems to think he can recover part of the “popular vote” in this way. He calls for an additional 30,000 officers for ‘community’ policing. He denounces the laxity of the courts. He demands a firmer policy of repression against delinquency, with mandatory 30-year prison sentences for the murder of police officers and other “holders of authority”. He wants to extend the scope of “aggravating circumstances” to the perpetrators of attacks against other professions that also represent authority, such as firefighters and teachers.
These demands are rejected by many Communists and have never, to our knowledge, been seriously discussed or validated by any representative body of the PCF, and raise a number of issues. The previous experience of so-called community policing was inconclusive, to say the least. It did not seriously change the relationship between the police and the population. In the difficult neighbourhoods that Fabien Roussel mentions, community policing was a complete failure. As for the idea of heavier penalties to preventing murder, their effectiveness as a deterrent is unproven. This is a discriminatory demand, based on the notion of a hierarchy of citizens and the idea that some lives are worth less than others.
The PCF has a tradition of fighting against inequalities, but now its candidate declares himself in favour of unequal treatment in criminal law, depending on whether the victims of aggression have “authority” or not! Is the murder of a supermarket cashier less serious than the murder of a policeman, just because the cashier does not hold “authority”? This is an idea that is as absurd as it is reactionary, and it has no place in the programme of a Communist Party.
Wanting tougher penalties for those who assault “authority holders” raises other problems. What do we do if the firefighters’ attackers are police officers? There have already been several violent confrontations between law enforcement and firefighters [see videos here]. However, the policeman who bludgeons a firefighter, who uses explosive devices or gas against him, will not be called to account in court. He is only doing its job as a “public service”, after all! On the other hand, the firefighter who defends himself risks a conviction with aggravating circumstances! Under the current regime, therefore, there is ‘violence’ and ‘violence’. “Republican” law is not the same for everyone. The violence inflicted by the “authorities” might be legal, but it is illegitimate in our view. Conversely, illegal but legitimate violence is sometimes necessary to defend workers against police attacks. And if there is indeed a problem of laxity in the criminal response to crime, it is above all with regard to the crimes of capitalists and corrupt politicians. If you are rich and powerful, you do not risk much. There is also laxity with regard to the frequent and sometimes fatal beatings perpetrated by police officers.
The following is from the text of a statement issued by the CGT trade union organisation of the those workers within the Police Administration HQ in Paris, (Préfecture de Police):
“No, the whole of the CGT of the Ministry of the Interior did not support joining the “citizens” rally organized on May 19, in support of the Republican police. It is not for us to comment on the calls to participate, including by the CGT Intérieur-Police union. However, in order to avoid any confusion, we would like to briefly explain our position. Of course, as a trade union organisation, and we would even say simply as human beings, we sincerely sympathise with the families of the victims of colleagues who have died in the line of duty. It will never be acceptable for CGT members to die at work.
This is true for the 11 police officers and gendarmes affected by such tragic events in 2020, according to official figures, but also for the 176 deaths from accidents at work in the construction sector alone in 2019. Why this comparison? Because for the CGT of the Prefecture of Police, the life of an employee has the same value regardless of his sector of activity.
But then you will ask, why is a government so quick to pay tribute to the policemen who died following their duties, with official statements and “crocodile tears”, and at the same time so silent on deaths in other sectors?”
This statement by the GCT representing the Police Department of Paris is perfectly clear. No-one can accuse them of not showing solidarity or compassion towards the families of murdered police. But the full text exposes the extremist ideology behind the demonstration – a shift towards an unaccountable and militarised police force – and explains why the CGT did not want to be associated with it.
If, using these or similar arguments, Fabien Roussel and other PCF leaders had refused to participate in this reactionary carnival, hardly anyone in the Party or its potential electorate would have complained. His participation in the rally was a serious political mistake and this should be recognised by the party, which must change course. The PCF as a whole is not at issue here. Roussel and other leaders decided to participate in the rally on their own initiative. But in future, no PCF leader should ever, under any circumstances, join a demonstration of the right or the extreme right. We demonstrate against the right, not with it.
Some of Fabien Roussel’s comments about the forces of ‘law and order’ go against fundamental tenets the theoretical heritage of the communist movement. The role of the police and the army in capitalist society occupies a central place in the writings and political actions of Marx and Engels, especially after the experience of the Paris Commune, the 150th anniversary of which we have just celebrated.
Their theory of the state is one of the cornerstones of communist ideology. In a televised interview on May 11, Roussel said, “The police and the army, are still the last bulwark to ensure the cohesion of the nation.” This is not true and never has been true. Who massacred the Communards? What was the role of the police under the wartime Vichy regime? What about the bloody repression of post-war strikes, the military coup of 1958, or police violence in 1968? Even today, the forces of law and order do not hesitate to brutalise, gas and maim trade unionists and young people in struggle.
The analysis of the origin and social function of the “armed detachments ” of the state is one of the pillars of Marxist revolutionary theory. This owes nothing to chance. No ruling class has ever given way to the social forces that oppose it without resorting – or at least attempting to resort – to violence. In the Communist Manifesto of 1848, Marx and Engels do not address this question directly, but after the experience of the European revolutions of that year and especially the experience of the defeat of the Paris Commune, the attitude of the workers’ movement towards the question of the police and the army was at the heart of their political thought.
Their conclusions are presented in the Civil War in France, notably in the preface written by Engels, and in the Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State. In the latter book, Engels explained that the existence of the repressive state apparatus, “is an admission that this society is entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, having split into irreconcilable oppositions that it is powerless to ward off.
But so that the antagonists, the classes with opposing economic interests, do not consume themselves and society in a sterile struggle, the need is imposed for a power which, placed apparently above society, must blur the conflict, keep it within the limits of ‘order’, and this power, born of society, but which places itself above it and becomes more and more foreign to it, is the state”.
For Marx and Engels, therefore, the role of the army and the police is not to reconcile the classes in conflict, but only to keep this conflict within the limits of the existing social order and prevent the overthrow of the latter. The army and the police are bodies of class domination, of oppression of one class by another. They are a bulwark, not of ‘social cohesion’, as Fabien Roussel imagines, but of the existing social order, of the capitalist system.
It should be added that national cohesion is not exactly a communist objective. How can there be ‘cohesion’ between exploiters and exploited? The capitalists, Macron, Le Pen, are all part of the ‘nation’. The nation is divided into classes and we communists are in favour, not of national cohesion, but of the class struggle. It should also be noted, with regard to this ‘nation’ that Fabien Roussel evokes in practically all his speeches, that a considerable number of workers in France are not part of it. Rather than talking in terms of nationality, let us rather think in terms of class.
So are the police our enemies, to be treated as such? Or are they our allies, mere “civil servants” or “workers in uniform”? What should be our attitude and policy towards police officers and their working conditions?
Several polls indicate that a very large majority of police officers are right-wing, and that 40-50% plan to vote for the Rassemblement National, [formerly the National Front]. However, the mere fact that police officers vote for Macron or even For Le Pen does not mean that they are irremediably reactionary. We must not see them as enemies from the outset. Treating all police officers as fascists or racists is not the best way to convince them to join the fight against capitalism.
However, declaring oneself “in solidarity with the forces of law and order” or “understanding the anger of the police“, in the manner of Fabien Roussel, is an equally calamitous approach, because it ignores – or rather pretends to ignore – the existence within the police of a powerful and growing authoritarian and reactionary tendency, historically linked to the fascist leagues of the 1930s, to Pétainism and to the Gaullist police.
Let us not forget that during the events of May 1968, de Gaulle had planned a massive police operation to arrest thousands of trade union reps, communist militants and other “leftists” in overnight raids and imprison them in sports stadiums, The operation was cancelled at the last minute. But the fact that it even existed speaks volumes about the role of the police, which has nothing to do with ‘social cohesion’. The slogans and speeches that dominated the demonstration of May 19th indisputably place it in line with this fascist tradition within the police.
Of course, not all police officers are convinced reactionaries. But there are many who are. When they throw themselves upon peaceful demonstrators with batons or when they spray nurses with gas, they hardly express any reluctance. We cannot attribute all the behaviour of the forces of law and order solely to the decisions of the police and government hierarchy. Nonetheless, we should avoid lumping them together. A revolutionary programmatic approach must aim at separating the reactionary elements from those that are not. Periods of heightened class struggle – and we have reason to believe that we will be entering such a period soon – can lead to differentiation within the military and police. The programme and propaganda of the revolutionaries must be used to facilitate and accelerate this differentiation. Such a program could include, for example:
- An end to heavy armament of the police and prohibition of water cannons, explosive devices, gases and surveillance drones during trade union demonstrations and rallies.
- An end to the use of force against peaceful demonstrators.
- Restricting the use of weapons of war to dangerous police operations.
- Employing the number of police officers according to the real needs of protecting the public.
- Dissolution of the special riot police, the CRS, and any other police forces specialising in repression.
- A ban on police involvement in the eviction of tenants.
- The ending of identity checks where there is no suspicion of an offence.
- A purge of the police of all officers belonging to fascist-type organisations.
- Total immunity for any police officer refusing to follow orders that call into question constitutional freedoms.
- Sacking of all officers guilty of brutality whether inside or outside police stations.
- Suspension of any officer making racist or sexist remarks.
- Banning of the use of the police against strikes and trade union actions in general.
- Establishment of a genuinely independent complaints body.
- The immediate payment for all overtime already worked and a strict limitation on the number of overtime hours allowed.
- Renovation of police stations.
A revolutionary programme must address the need to reduce the repressive capacities of the police apparatus. It must reach out to police officers who refuse to be the armed wing of the government and the powerful. It must seek to purge the forces of law and order of fascist elements.
If the PCF made it clear that the police, like the army, is not a neutral force in society, but an organisation at the service of the established order, it would capture the attention of a large group of workers and young people who, through their own experience, have come to the same conclusion.
This objective truth does not mean that all police officers are fully aware of it, but precisely, one of the most important aspects of a communist policy should be to make them aware of how the ruling class and governments use them as a force for intimidation and repression. It is then up to the police to choose their side. The police officer has equipment and his orders. But he or she also has judgment, and a conscience. Those who see themselves as being on the side of the victims of violence and oppression, who sincerely want to serve and protect the population, can, at least potentially, be won over to the revolutionary cause.
But what we are currently seeing is going in the opposite direction, that is to say that representatives of the PCF (and the Socialist Party, of course, but this was to be expected) are only too willing to make concessions to the right and the extreme right, by adopting reactionary political demands and ideas, in the hope – completely unfounded, as it happens – of being able to score points at the ballot box. This is a disastrous strategy that will explode in the face, not only of the PCF candidate, but of the entire party, cutting it off from a large mass of potential support among young people and workers.
At the time of writing, May 19 was already a month ago. The question might be asked, should we not turn the page and move on? That would be a serious mistake. In view of Roussel’s vision of the state and his political positions, mistakes such as that of May 19th can be made again. The extreme right and its allies in the police will not stop there.
May 19 was a sign of the emergence of an authoritarian movement that is becoming bolder and more virulent. The question of the attitude of the PCF will arise again. There is an urgent need to acknowledge the mistake that has been made and to change course.
The course we defend – that of freedoms, democracy, social progress, the abolition of capitalism and all its oppressions – has no need for yet another party that decries the ‘laxity’ of the courts, sides with the police and threatens ‘firm repression’ of those who get on the wrong side of the law, and especially if they dare to raise their hands against the “holders of authority”!
It does not need a ‘party of order’, but, on the contrary, a party whose programme and actions clearly position it as the implacable enemy of the established order, of an order based on exploitation and social injustice.
The best way to combat crime is to put an end to a criminal order, the capitalist order, and to pave the way for a truly democratic society in which wealth, productive power, economic and social priorities and the functioning of the state meet the needs of the entire population, and no longer operate on behalf of a rapacious capitalist class.
