By Gauthier Haudel of the French socialist paper – La Riposte.
The results of the legislative elections confirm a process that has been at work for some time now. We see a polarization of society with the rise of the left vote and the extreme right, and a weakening of the traditional parties of “government”. The other part of this polarisation is a rejection of all politics, which was expressed in the abstention rate (53.77%) and blank and invalid votes (3.53%).
Macron has emerged weakened from the elections, with 245 seats, against 350 in 2017, losing his absolute majority. Even if he is the largest party, he is weak and he will have to rely on Les Républicains [LR, formerly the ‘Gaullist’ Party] and possibly even the RN [National Rally, formerly the National Front] in some circumstances. But the LR are divided on their attitude towards Macron’s majority and may negotiate with him for ministerial posts in the government.
Based on the number of seats won, 131, the left coalition, NUPES, made a breakthrough. More than half of these went to LFI [La France Insoumise, the party of Mélenchon], which represents the driving force behind the left-wing coalition. However, this result must be put into perspective, because it did not mobilize as many voters as Mélenchon had done alone during his presidential bid.
Gains for the left – and far right
Nevertheless, the left achieved a much better score than in the legislative elections of 2017 and if it had still been divided it would have lost seats. On the other hand, the NUPES coalition made it possible to pull the Socialist Party (PS) – a party torn between right and left – partly to the left, but at the cost of the abandonment of the policy of nationalisation in the energy and financial sectors.
On the whole, the centre of gravity of the NUPES bloc is further to the left than was the case for all the different left groups in parliament in 2017. Then, the PS was the most important element and it was made up of those who still drew a “generally positive” balance of the Hollande presidency. That said, we cannot exclude the possibility that at the first opportunity, and under the pressure of events, the PS leaders and EELV [Greens] will resume their rightful place at the right side of French reformism.
On the other side, the RN has progressed considerably from 8 seats in 2017 to 89 today. The inability of the capitalist system and of the political forces that represent the interests of capital, such as Renaissance (Ex-En Marche – Macron’s party), to halt economic and social decline has caused a rise in discontent that is expressed in part through the channels of the far right. The RN uses nationalist, anti-globalization, anti-system rhetoric to present itself as the alternative to Macron’s decline and politics without ever questioning the existing social order.
In normal times, capitalists are not inclined to help the extreme right to come to power. It poses too great a threat to social stability, potentially provoking massive mobilisations. The capitalists and their media panicked public opinion by pointing the finger at the NUPES which, if it were in power, they said, would inevitably cause chaos. Geoffroy Roux de Bézieux, president of the Medef (the employers’ organisation) has expressed himself several times along these lines, first, against Mélenchon during the presidential elections and then against the NUPES during the legislative elections.
There are elements of truth in this, but they must be understood as barely concealed threats. Any policy of social progress represents an obstacle to the interests of capital, to capitalist profits. A government that wanted to implement such a policy would face fierce opposition from the capitalists. It is through investment strikes, layoffs, lockouts, the refusal to carry out state orders, and so on, that the capitalists would cause chaos and they would bear the responsibility for it.
Tissue of lies
Macron’s strategy during the presidential and legislative campaign in the face of the “rise” of the left was along the same lines. The NUPES was portrayed as a coalition of parties lining up behind “Mélenchon’s program” considered radical, on the far left, and therefore a “danger for the republic”. This characterisation, which has nothing objective or rational about it, was accompanied by a tissue of lies, such as Mélenchon’s pseudo-fascination with Putin and other nonsense.
Then, in an attempt to discredit the left, the NUPES and the RN were presented as two extremes meeting on the other side, [as in the so-called “horseshoe theory” – ed]. Such accusations were normal, of course. Anything else would have been surprising!
Finally, the “republican front” has been shattered now that it no longer serves the interests of Macron or the defenders of capital in general. Sixty-three constituencies saw a straight duel between NUPES and the RN in the second-round run-off. In more than 50 of them, Macron and his henchmen gave no voting instructions to his supporters.
This strategy has made it possible to considerably strengthen the RN in the National Assembly and to attempt the division of the left. In any case, for Macron, the opposition to the left is achieved by strengthening the RN. This position was confirmed by the call from the Minister of Justice, Dupond-Moretti, during the second-round election night, to support the RN in “the interest of France” – which must be understood as “in the interest of French capitalism”.
The so-called extremism of NUPES
If we try to characterise the programme of the NUPES in an objective and rational way, we quickly realize that it is not a revolutionary programme, that is to say a break with capitalism, but one of social reforms that do not challenge capitalist property, though it is undeniable that the application of most of the measures would represent progress for the vast majority of the population. Ultimately, within the NUPES, LFI and the PCF represent the left wing of reformism.
It is understood that these reforms are an obstacle to capitalist profits and therefore to the creation of large fortunes for the rich. However, the capitalist economy is not healthy. Economic stagnation, the slowdown in growth, has resumed its course, that of the pre-Covid period. The economic recovery at the end of Covid was only a very short and temporary phase.
This situation makes all policies of social reform for the benefit of the workers even more intolerable for the capitalists. On the contrary, in order to preserve their interests, the capitalists demand the destruction of all the conquests of the past, imposing precariousness and the worsening of conditions in the name of competitiveness.
Although the NUPES programme mentions public-sector “poles” [“hubs” or “centres” – ed] – the few nationalisations have been abandoned at the request of the PS and EELV – most of the means of production and exchange would remain in the hands of the capitalists. Yet therein lies the economic power that allows them to organise economic sabotage!
Keynesian approach
The main leaders of the left wing of reformism, Mélenchon and others, have a Keynesian approach to economics. They claim to be able to improve the economic situation by replacing the liberal dogma of the politics of supply (relying on the market to regulate the economy) by the politics of demand. On the one hand, in other words, it means increasing the minimum wage and encouraging wage increases to boost consumption and therefore growth. On the other hand, it consists of launching public investment on the market, making it possible to respond to social demand and to bring activity to companies, subject to a few social and environmental constraints.
But there is no guarantee that companies would play the game, as long as they own the means of production. As for the economy, we have demonstrated on several occasions that it was not consumption that drove the economy but the rate of profit. Of course, consumption is a prerequisite, but it is the low profitability of investments in the productive sector that is the cause of economic stagnation, hence the dead-end of Keynesian stimulus recipes to curb economic crises.
For a number of voters and activists, the left bloc represented a hope of counter-balancing Macron’s policies. But to become a weapon of social transformation, the programme of the NUPES or its components must be inspired more by Marxist rather than Keynesian analyses. The only way to make the reforms of social progress sustainable is to break the capitalists’ stranglehold on the economy in order to avoid any attempt at sabotage.
This means neither more nor less than the socialization of the means of production and exchange under the democratic control of the workers with regard to the key sectors of the economy. From the point of view of capital, such measures are more radical than the simple taxation of profits, but from the point of view of all employees these measures are only justice.
Social instability and a major crisis
From a capital perspective, obviously, if Macron achieves a coalition with the LRs, which is absolutely necessary for the capitalists to get out of a deadlock situation, he and his allies will pursue a policy of social regression, turning back reforms. Inflation, economic stagnation, the war in Ukraine, energy problems, global warming and climate change are all elements that will lead to social instability and a major crisis at one time or another despite the apparent passivity of the workers.
Macron is a smart strategist and tactician of capital. He is fully aware of the situation. He knows that during his five-year term, he will have to face social crisis situations. He has the experience of yellow vests and union mobilisations, for example against the aborted Covid-related pension reform.
This context determines his entire strategy: he tries to divide the workers among themselves (civil servants, private sector employees and the unemployed), flirts with nationalist ideas and agitates the communitarian spectre by pitting people against each other according to their origins (eg the law against separatism, talk of “Islamo-leftism”, use of the term extreme right…) and reinforces the arsenal of repression by giving pledges to the police to quell the revolt.
In this context, the struggle against the consequences of capitalism and Macron’s policy will take on extra-parliamentary forms; the latent passivity will be abruptly broken. The NUPES but especially its most left components (LFI and PCF) but also the CGT (the main trade union federation) will have great responsibilities. They will be pushed to their left by the driving force of events. Their strength will depend on their attitude. It is possible that they will tend to object, but if they take the correct path then they will have solid support in the struggle.
Under the weight of events, they will have to reinforce their programs with more decisive measures against capitalism and more in tune with reality. Such a program in such a context will also be a more effective tool to get rid of the nationalist poison.
Edited from the French Marxist paper, La Riposte. The original can be found here.
