Where next for Mélenchon and La France Insoumise?

Tony Saunois, CWI Secretary, discusses his review of Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s book, “Now the People – Revolution in the 21st Century”, with Sean Figg, from the CWI’s International Secretariat. Mélenchon and the movement he leads, La France Insoumise (Frace Unbowed), are well positioned to play a critical role in how the crisis of French capitalism develops in the next period. To advance the interests of the French working class in the crisis the issues of program, organisation and strategy are crucial. In this podcast Tony and Sean look at Mélenchon’s position on these crucial questions.

Episode Transcript

(00:13):
Hello and welcome to the Socialist World podcast from the
Committee for Work of International putting forward a
Marxist analysis and revolutionary socialist program
to arm the struggle against capitalism.

(00:35):
OK, hello and welcome to the Socialist World podcast brought
to you by the Committee for a Workers International, the CWI.
My name is Sean Fig from the CWIInternational Secretariat, and
I'm sat here with Tony Saumwa, CWI Secretary, for a discussion

(00:56):
about his latest article, which is a review of Jean Luc
Melenchon's new book or recent book Now the People Revolution
in the 21st Century. So we're going to have a
discussion about the key ideas in that, where we agree with
Melenchon, where we might disagree and tease out a number

(01:19):
of points. So, Tony, welcome.
Thank you, Sean. Good afternoon.
And let's get straight into it. So probably we should start with
who is Melenchon and why are we talking about him?
Well, Jean Luc Melchon is a veryimportant figure in the French

(01:40):
left movement. He has a long history.
He goes back originally to the French Socialist Party he was a
member of. He joined that in the 1960s and
became a leader of the wing thatwas grouped around Francois
Mitterrand, who was became the leader of the Socialist Party on

(02:03):
its left broadly. What era was?
Thinking well, Mitterrand was elected to the presidency in
1981, which is a key point in terms of what happened recently
in France. In 1981, Mitterrand and
Mellersham was associated with his wing of the Socialist Party,
formed a bloc with the CommunistParty, the Union of the Left,

(02:24):
and they swept to power on an extremely radical programme.
They promised nationalisation ofthe key sectors of the economy,
spoke about the need to have a rupture with capitalism, and
then, once in power, they introduced some reforms.
But the bond markets came into play and they put ferocious

(02:44):
pressure along with the markets in general, the ruling class on
the government. And unfortunately the government
capitulated to them and abandoned its reform programme.
And really that was a turning point for what was to follow
over the subsequent decades in France, coupled with
international factors we can discuss later, which led to the
demise eventually of the Socialist Party and the

(03:07):
Communist Party. Now Camela Shan ended up
breaking from the Socialist Party, formed the party at the
left initially, and now he's become the leader of the new
broader group in which he's launched the LFI France Unbound,

(03:27):
which what it means in in it's translation and it's a central
figure on the the left in France.
But beyond that, he and the movement he leads, France
Unbound, internationally, it's really seen as the standard
bearer of the New Left and it's seen as a model to follow
because of some electoral successes it's had in the recent

(03:48):
period. So he's a key figure and
therefore an analysis of his ideas, his programme and his
methods I think is very productive and worthwhile from
the point of view not just of the struggle in France, but the
the global struggles that are taking place.
And would would I be correct then in saying that his history,
his formative political experiences, especially in the

(04:10):
80s, would it be unfair to say that his current ideas are
shaped by that experience of defeat?
Partly in the sense that he drewconclusions of the need
eventually to break from the Socialist Party and abandoned
social democracy, and in that sense it was partly a product
that was a positive part, I should say as well.

(04:31):
He had been a member initially of an organization led by French
figure Pierre Lambert, who's theleader of one of the French
Trotsky's groupings which conducted work in the French
Socialist Party, generally hiding their Marxist programme.
Now he was a member of that particular grouping for a
period. He was shaped undoubtedly by the

(04:54):
experience of what happened under the Metron government and
subsequent governments of the bythe French Socialist Party.
And in a certain sense, he pushed him to the left to to in
the sense of the conclusions that you draw, you eventually to
the need to break from the Socialist Party.
OK. And so before we go further,

(05:15):
looking into exactly what Mel and Sean's saying in his new
book that you've reviewed, we should probably unpack a bit
more for our listeners. What's happening in France, Why
Mel and Sean in the position he's in, why the position that
LFI France Unbowed is in is so important and significant?
So if you could just maybe unpack what's happening in

(05:36):
France right now for us. Well, that's crucial because
France at this particular point in time is in one of its most
severe political and social crisis for decades.
The Fifth Republic, which was founded by De Gore, I think in
1958, really was crucial. It gave massive Bonapartist

(05:57):
powers to the presidency. What do we mean by Bonapartist
powers? The powers concentrated in the
hands of the president in this instant, it can be repression.
It can also be a concentration of power without the weakened or
very limited democratic check. The massive power was
concentrated into the hands of the presidency at the expense of

(06:20):
the National Assembly, but that was introduced.
And then of course, we're seeingFrance today is in its, its, its
second most serious institutional crisis since the
Fifth Republic was formed by Charles de Gaulle.
The only one that was comparableto is possibly France 1968 when

(06:41):
he had the massive general strike involving over 10 million
French workers. Now, what has happened in France
in the recent period is you've seen the establishment of Macron
leading the the the presidency, heading the government, vicious
measures against the working class.
He's attempted to carry through.And this is against the

(07:03):
background of a complete collapse of the old traditional
parties, both of the left and indeed of the right.
And that's a phenomenon we've seen in many countries.
That's part of a global pattern.In France, he's gone a very long
way. You should bear in mind that on
the left for decades, for the whole of the Second World post
Second World War period, the French Communist Party and the

(07:23):
Socialist Party were the plenaryplayers in on the left as passes
the working class. The French Communist Party into
the 1980s had 500,000 members. They were getting between 20 and
25% of the vote. They were subsequently they were
partly supplanted by the French Socialist Party.

(07:44):
Because of these, the Communist Party's adherence to a very
rigid form of of stunless methodorganization and their program,
the Socialist Party surpassed it.
But nevertheless, they were theywere, they were giants.
Politically, they've been reduced to a rump.
The Communist Party is now down to about 3% of support.

(08:04):
In the most recent presidential election, the French Socialist
Party candidate got 2%. It's a measure of a complete.
Co admitter on this levels. No, exactly.
And it's a warning to what can happen to Labour here in Britain
as well. But nevertheless that took
place. It really followed particularly
a key presidential election in 2002 when this process was

(08:29):
underlined and there you saw theLe Pen and the far right had
stepped in to a political vacuumwhich had developed there.
They got into the second round for the first time.
They weren't slaughtered in the election.
But since then they've developedan important base of support and

(08:49):
it's grown, got over 40% in the most recent presidential
election and that is gone. Is part of the general
background now on the left. Mellishon's alliance that he put
together has been the primary opposition from the left to
Macron's government, which is allegedly centrist but

(09:11):
nevertheless has been carried through vicious attacks against
the working class. He dissolved the National
Assembly to try and get more stability.
This. Was in 2024. 2024 and
nevertheless it's a disaster. His calculation completely
backfired and the the National Assembly was split into three

(09:32):
blocks with nobody having a clear majority.
A so-called centre block, which you know, the capitalist block
really the far right, yeah, around Macron Le Pen on the
right and Mellishan's grouping on the on the on the left.
With nobody having overall control, you've had government
after government 4. Indeed, before the before we

(09:54):
started recording the podcast, Idouble checked exactly how many
prime ministers Macron has had since he became president and
he's now on to his 7th Prime Minister.
And overwhelmingly they a littlebit of stability when he first
came in, but the last 1234 have all lasted just a matter of

(10:16):
months. None of them have managed to
last for an entire year even. The last one I think lasted days
actually. Indeed, I think he he, he, he
was appointed, resigned on the Monday and reappointed on the
Friday. Oh Blimey, that might
technically count as an eighth Prime Minister.
I'm not sure. Maybe Wikipedia is not able to

(10:37):
keep up with the with. The shifts.
Right. OK, Well, Tony, let's move on
then to look at Mel and Sean's ideas.
We've established he's got this crucial position, what LFI does,
what he does as the leader of LFI matters in the period ahead.
Maybe first let's look at where we might agree with Mel and Sean

(11:02):
and try and find some some fraternal left wing positives to
say. Well, I mean, I mean, firstly, I
say it's definitely worthwhile reading his book.
His book raises all sorts of fundamental questions that the
left and the Marxist and the revolutionary left and we in the
CWI have to confront in this newera.

(11:26):
He correctly concludes that we're an entirely new era of
capitalist crisis. He sees an entirely negative,
pessimistic future as far as what capitalism is going to
offer in the course of the next period.
His critique of what capital society means globally and he

(11:47):
also in France, he's absolutely devastating.
He gives dramatic warnings aboutthe apocalyptic developments
that are taking place with the climatic crisis which is
unfolding. And there's much in his book
which is extremely interesting points to develop and to discuss
further. Just on the picture he paints of

(12:10):
capitalism where we'd agree withhim.
I mean, in the review that you've done, you pick out some
of the the figures that and facts that Mel and Sean gives.
And this point is quite staggering here that during the
COVID pandemic, a new billionaire was created every 36
hours while simultaneously millions more plunged into

(12:30):
poverty. The 26 billionaires have as much
wealth as 4 billion people on the planet.
Nearly. What's that?
Nearly half, half of the world'spopulation?
The number of deaths from from noise pollution, even just in
time production, the exhaustion that causes paints a real bleak
picture of of modern capitalism.And of course we'd we'd agree

(12:54):
with those. Features.
Oh, we would. He's absolutely devastating in
his critique of capitalist society.
I mean, you gave us, you know, some of the figures there in
terms of the concentration of wealth.
He makes the point based on other researchers figures.
There's 9 million people are killed in the world on the basis

(13:15):
of the effects of air pollution.12,000, by the way, die
prematurely in Europe because ofthe effects of air pollution.
He draws out an absolutely devastating picture, the
horrible and terrible waste which is present in capitalist,
in modern capitalist society. It gives it a devastating

(13:38):
figure, For example, in relationto clothing, the the amount of
goods clothing globally in the last 20 years, the number of
clothes purchased has gone up 60%, but a third of the clothes
produced worldwide are never sold and 90% of that is

(14:01):
incinerated. I mean, it's a devastating
critique of the waste that's there under capitalism and how
it's consciously been developed.One of the most modern, the
developments we have of course is the use of the PC, the
computers, the lifespan comparedto 1990, those has been
consciously whittled down. Whereas the average PC of the

(14:22):
lifespan in 1990 of a roughly A decade, today it's three years
because people are just compelled to buy new PCs.
And this is repeated adding fromNiton in different fields of
capitalist production. Absolutely.
In fact, I think everyone can appreciate that the cycle of
turnover with phones, tablets, in fact, we've just had to

(14:44):
replace the computers in the CWIoffice because they couldn't
host the latest version of Windows or something like that.
And we're all forced to keep consuming, keep buying, using
products that are otherwise perfectly usable still.
So we agree with that aspect of Mel and Schon's analysis.

(15:04):
What other points? Would we agree with, well, he
makes the point quite, you know,justifiably the capitalism on
the basis of how it is continuing with the, the effects
of capitalist production on the ecosystem.
And he makes the point quite correctly that the system is
unsustainable, which it is from a long time point of view.

(15:26):
And he calls a revolution. He said it is necessary to have
a a a revolution. Well, that's a big tick from us.
Which is, you know, obviously broadly a positive conclusion
that he chose from, you know, from the nature of capitalist,
capitalist society as well. He makes other very other
interesting points in terms of, I think you touched upon it in

(15:47):
terms of the effect of shift work.
He deals with the issue of time,how everything is geared towards
just in time production and the effects it has on people's life
in terms of working hours. In terms of the in terms of
night shifts, 14% of the French workforce now work permanent

(16:08):
night shifts. The effects it has on health
cancers, cardiac disease is absolutely devastating.
The material that he produces inhis book as a condemnation of
the whole of capitalist production and capitalist
society. And in that sense, you know,
it's worth reading. And his points that he makes

(16:30):
about where the movement needs to go, in the sense that he
calls for a revolution being necessary in, in a sense he's
positive. The problem is what he means by
that and the conclusions he draws.
From it, absolutely the big question, we agree we need a
revolution. How are we going to build the
forces, the organization to carry through a revolution?

(16:53):
And I suspect this is where we'll start disagreeing with
Mellenchon. And you'll explain why is is
that, is that where we disagree with Mellenchon?
That will that's what the central point in terms of the
conclusions that he would draw from.
I would add when when he is critique of capitalism, he he in
a sense he's right that he critiques the endless strife for

(17:19):
consumerism and economic growth on a capitalist basis.
Now because of his emphasis, which is justifiable on the
climatic crisis. He really flirts, however, with
the idea of a degrowth policy. You don't need to sustain
growth. Now I think he's wrong on that
because you would need to sustain growth.
The character of the growth is somewhat different.

(17:42):
You would have a democratic planned growing of the economy
in harmony with the ecosystem soit is not threatening it and
destroying it as it's happening under under capitalism.
So that's an important point. Sustainable green growth.
Yeah, sustainable green growth, investment, general development,

(18:02):
but you would eliminate vast amounts of the virtually all of
the waste which is there within capitalism, as you've already
seen. Even the clothing, the figure on
the clothing that you gave earlier would make a massive
difference. That would make and in food
production, it's even worse in terms of the position the the,
the, the, the bird population. He makes the point is bigger

(18:22):
than it's ever been. However, about 60 or 70% of it
is factory based birds produced for food.
Chickens, fundamentally 10s of thousands of them.
I think millions actually gives the figure in the book are
simply destroyed and never sold.They're just literally crushed
alive, as he points out in in France.

(18:45):
So let's get back to that question of the revolution.
Who does Mel and Sean think willlead this revolution?
Well, this is the critical question because what he
concludes on is a new era of capitalist society.
But he also draws another conclusion from that and it's
hinted at in the book. In the title of the book.
It's the era of the people. In his view.

(19:09):
In the book he makes the point that the battle, the struggle
between the proletariat and the the bourgeoisie has been fought.
In other words, it's over and now it's the era of the people.
And in the context of doing that, I mean, firstly, he's
wrong in the sense that the battle between the proletariat

(19:32):
and the Bouj Brazil, the capitalist class has been
fought, is being fought, but it's not being fought to a
conclusion. And that point he, he, he omits
to to make and he leaps over that.
Then from that to the conclude that we're in the era of the
people now, what constitutes thepeople in this?

(19:52):
He really downgrades the role ofthe working class in terms of
the revolution and painting thisbroad picture of the people.
It ignores the fact, I mean, it sounds very tempting and it
sounds very convincing, the ideaof the people, It gives a figure
to justify it. Top 1%, the figures you gave

(20:13):
earlier, that's the ruling class, if you like.
Then everybody else stands in opposition to them.
The problem is with that is it'snot homogeneous.
What is the people? It's multiclass.
There's different elements, there's different component
social forces within it. And the key question is, within
that grouping, allegedly of the people, which force is going to

(20:36):
play the decisive role? He sees the working class is
playing a role, but not the decisive role, and that is where
we would have a fundamental difference with with
Mellishant's analysis. And from that he shows all sorts
of erroneous conclusions in relation to the character and
the type of organization that isnecessary.

(21:00):
And if we unpack this question of the people a bit more, I
mean, I, I suppose one of our criticisms would be that
different elements of the peoplethat you just explained will
pull in different directions, will have different views about
the way forward for society. What a, a, a, a young factory
worker or retail worker would accept would be very different

(21:22):
to a small farmer or small shop owner, maybe even employing that
same small shop worker. And so in terms of coming to a
clear way forward for society, that was 'cause it enormous
problems. Well, it, it leaves it with a,
with a sort of amorphous conclusion.
And this is the central point because he hints at the fact

(21:46):
really behind this. The idea that he's posed is an
important question. And that's the issue of the
decline of the traditional industrial working class,
particularly in Europe, North America and South America.
And that is undeniable. It's happened with the
deindustrialisation which has taken place.
And that leads him to this issueof the people.

(22:08):
But he's missing 2 fundamental points. 1 is that has taken
place, but side by side with it has gone the issue of a
proletarianisation of sections of the former middle class,
former sections of the petty bourgeois.
Now this has taken place, you see that reflected in Britain,

(22:29):
the radicalisation, the strikes of the doctors, which has taken
place in other layers, which is very significant and very
important. But within that and the decline
of the industrialisation, you'vealso seen the emergence of a
like a precariat, a layer of semi middle class, semi working
class layer of younger people working on their laptops in, in

(22:53):
you know, in cafes and, and whathave you.
There's millions of them knocking around London and
Paris, doing all sorts of jobs, being exploited by capitalism.
But they are somewhat different to the collective consciousness
which develops from the industrial working class and the
traditional sections of the working class, which despite
their decline still exist concentrated in transport, in

(23:18):
utility sections, the health sector and some sections of
manufacturing industry, which are still present.
And that has a key role to play.Now this layer of, if you like,
new layers of the working class is a critical issue.
It's a critical factor in these organising and trade unions.
Sections are looking towards thetrade unions, but it's in the

(23:40):
process of developing as a class.
It's not yet become a class for itself, one which can act
consciously and has drawn and developed the rounded out
consciousness as a class, which the traditional working class
has, and there's political conclusions that flow from that.

(24:03):
I mean, historically, the working class, especially in
countries where the working class was not the majority, has
always had to have a policy to other social layers to try and
show that they can lead the way forward in transforming society.
Obviously the classic way that that's appeared has been in
countries with a large peasantry.

(24:24):
Now we're not talking about thatin France or Europe or most
countries in the world. But there's an element of of
that in what you're saying that the the working class must set
an example, must show away to these layers of semi
proletarianised, semi petty bourgeois, new layers of the
working class that that that that you've mentioned.

(24:47):
No that, well that's true. And you see he gives very
important figures on that. You see from the point of view
of the urbanisation and he has abig issue of the role of cities
and cities play a crucial role. But he makes the point which is
very important globally in termsof analysing the the world
situation that in 19, fifty, 20%of the world population lived in

(25:09):
cities as 80% didn't. That figure is now completely
reversed and for the first time now the immense majority of the
world's population live in cities.
Now a section of them are more classic working class.
In the neo colony world you havea massive layer of urban poor
which are coming in, living in the cities, St. vendors, St.

(25:32):
hawkers etcetera. Other layers very oppressed but
living nevertheless in the urbanareas.
Here. You could say in Europe it's a
somewhat different phenomenon with this section of the form of
Petty Borswell, there's have been moved more into the general
orbit of the working class and the process of developing that,

(25:54):
but it's still not fully. Something marks anticipated by
the way, isn't it? Marks anticipated this.
It was, it's posed, it's a proliteranisation of, you know,
of the middle class and and the petty Borswell.
And that's decisive in terms of the shift, but it does not
detract from the central and important role of, of of the

(26:15):
working class in driving forwardthe idea of the socialist
revolution. And, and there's a second point
which he misses. While we see a
deindustrialisation taking placein Europe, North America and
Latin America in the main, whichis vital there, what he doesn't
mention is the explosion of the classic industrial working class

(26:39):
in Asia, in China, India, Indonesia and other countries
globally, the working, the traditional working class is
probably stronger than it's everbeen from a global point of
view. Now that does not negate from
deeming from the new challenges that arise for the movement in
in Europe, in North America and and Latin America because of the

(27:02):
deindustrialisation which has taken place.
It poses new issues, but it has had this sort of intermediate
peer. We've been through an issue of
the it's had a reflection politically in terms of what
these layers have brought out politically, particularly

(27:22):
reflected in the new left formations which have.
OK, well, let's let's unpack that a bit more because it
sounds like we we're defending the role of the working class
despite changes in its composition.
But Mel and Sean seems to have been swept along by the changes,
so how is that reflected in his organizational conclusions?

(27:45):
Well, he, he, he's, he, he has, he's, he's sort of identified
the changes which have taken place, but then drawn somewhat
erroneous conclusions from it interms of the tasks that are
posed. I would also say when he's posed
the issue of of revolution beingnecessary, he divides it very
clearly and he deals with the mass movements that have taken
place in Chile, in Sri Lanka, Sudan and other countries as

(28:09):
well. It divides it into very three
different parts, into a part is a destiny part and constituent
part in terms of different layers.
We can maybe discuss that a little bit later, but it's.
Extremely academic. It's extremely rigid now.
All revolutions have their different phases, but you can't

(28:30):
just separate one phase distinctly from the other.
And by the way, the constituent part, the ultimate part, which
is drawn from the uprisings thathave taken place, which have
marvellously showed the potential, it says the
constituent part leads them to draw and raise the demand for a
constituent assembly. And that's the end of the
process as far as you're concerned.

(28:52):
Now, if you take Chile and some other countries, the issue of
constituent assembly was crucialand did come up as a mastery
mind. It wasn't the case everywhere,
but where it did come up, it wasa search and a demand for a
Democratic Change, restructuringof society from the masses in a
very confused manner. But the construction of a
constituent assembly in those situations is not the end of the

(29:14):
process, it's the beginning of the process.
If you're a socialist, if you'refighting for socialists, if.
You're fighting for the socialist revolution.
Because, of course, historicallythe Constituent Assembly was
part of the. Bourgeois revolution, of course.
Yeah, historically. And I think this this men and
Sean's scheme of destituents, instituents and constituents, I

(29:37):
don't know, maybe that's a bad translation, but you can broadly
guess what is is meant. But the main thing that strikes
me there as well is the lack of a class content to those ideas.
And that clearly links to what you've explained about the men
and Sean's preoccupation with the idea of the people over a
specific class. Like, for example, who we would,

(30:00):
we would in those phases talk more about the crisis of the
capitalist class and the struggle of the working class,
the creation of working class institutions of struggle and of
power. Whereas Mel and Sean, by using
these terms, seems to submerge all of that.
And as you say, that leads him to his conclusion in many ways,

(30:22):
the Constituent Assembly being our starting point.
And well, that that's an important point.
You raised this, Sean, in relation to the question of the
Constituent Assembly being part of the bourgeois revolution or
the bourgeois democratic revolution.
Now we support the struggle, forexample, in Chile for a
Constituent Assembly, but a constituent assembly for what we

(30:42):
demanded, A revolutionary constituent assembly that will
be constituted by the working class, by others oppressed by
capitalism, to work out a programme to carry through the
socialist transformation of society.
Now Melechon takes the constituent assembly and it's
very interesting. He does that and then leaves it

(31:03):
and it's part of the bourgeois democratic revolution, you
should say, But he reverts back this issue with the people.
He calls for the it's the era ofthe people and the era of the
citizens revolution. He's taking us back to the
French Revolution in 1789, whichof course was crucial, extremely
progressive historically in his time, but it was a bourgeois

(31:26):
revolution. And reflecting that his hero who
he quotes in the book is Robespierre, he negates to
mention those on the further to the left like Pabeuf and the
Conspiracy of Equals, which camea little bit later, but
nevertheless which was an embryopic form of primitive

(31:49):
socialist ideas that would be. In contrast to Rodespier who was
more of a radical bourgeois. Rodespier was on the very
radical wing, leader of the the Jacobins in the Jacobin Club
etcetera, which was the most radical wing in a certain sense
of petty bourgeois wing. The the revolutionary movement
in its era was extremely radical.

(32:12):
And if you want left from that point of view.
But he was, but he was not. He's not drawing on the
socialist conclusions and and equally not only from the French
Revolution, he makes no reference whatsoever to the
marvellous event of 1871 at the Paris Commune when the masses
did take power and you had a people's government or a

(32:35):
workers, embryonic workers government.
It wasn't a classic working class which hadn't fully
developed there but was crucial.He makes no reference to that.
He just, he's imprisoned just within the framework of the
bourgeois democratic. That's very telling, isn't it?
It also hints a bit of naivety as well.
In these cross class constituentassembly, he's expecting

(32:58):
sections of the bourgeois or petty bourgeois to accepts a
decision that would take them out of power.
Well, yeah, presumably, yeah, wesee the and you see, he sees the
demand for the Constituent Assembly as has been thrown up.
But he's he, he talks about the assemblies that took place in
these mass movements and he romanticises them.

(33:21):
The mass movements in the Neo Colonial.
World in the neo kind of scene, with with one or two exceptions,
Sudan did have more organised committees, but they were never
linked together on a national scale.
What you have in most of the other movements were broad
assemblies in neighborhoods which were significant, coming

(33:41):
together and people debating what should be done.
But they were not structured. They're amorphous, They fizzled
out, he says. Them as an alternative power
structure and yet they're not. It's an amorphous cloud of
people gathering on street corners to discuss this or that
point, but it's not sufficient as an alternative power
struggle, power structure which can challenge the capitalist

(34:04):
state apparatus and provide an alternative.
To the teeth, as we've seen in the repression of the protests
in France itself. Yes, and that amorphousness is
reflected in Mel and Sean's ideas about how to organise LFI.
What's our critique of that? Well, that's the point, because
he makes explicitly clear, not so much in this book but in his

(34:25):
other material, he's against theparty.
We're in the ear of the people. Really what he argues
fundamentally is that if you accept it's the working class,
it's the central force of the revolution, that means that it's
a party. We're in the era of the people.
Ergo the form of organization isis more more of a movement.

(34:47):
It's a movement. In fact, he describes his own
organization as as a gaseous movement.
It's like a cloud coming together, you know, of of of
individuals, of people, but not as a structured party through
which the energies of the working class and the masses
could be channelled through democratic debate, discussion, a

(35:08):
struggle over ideas and programme to act as a real
instrument of a struggle. And the effect of this is this
is what you're seeing repeated here in Britain with the your
party as a form of organization.Is it any effect?
It concentrates power into the hands of a few people in the
top. And I think you've made the

(35:30):
point clear, but just so it's crystal clear, what what is the
core of our argument that a party is superior to the sort of
movement that Mel and Sean's talking?
About because it gives more of aproper forum for the party to
become an instrument of struggle.
It's like a Trotsky use the analogy.
It's like it's like a steam engine without the piston box to

(35:52):
channel the energy and to organise it, direct it, work out
a clear programme. It's left us an amorphous, which
is what you have with these movements, not just in France
with the LFI, but also you've had it in the past, some years
ago with Podemos in Spain, with a series of in relation to

(36:14):
Greece and they, their programming ideas reflect that.
It's amorphous. It's left in a very general
form. It's not socialist, It's attacks
the system. It attacks the elite, it attacks
the rich. But that's as far as it will go.
I think there's a crucial point in what you just said, that a
party is crucial for democratically determining a

(36:36):
clear programme. Can I guess, can we guess that
the organizational amorphousness, gaseousness as
we've put it in organizational forms with Mel and Sean is
reflected programmatically? It is most definitely.
And you see, this is an important point.
Organization doesn't fall from the sky.

(36:57):
Organization reflects programme and policy and their policy and
programme. This whole analysis of Melichon
on the people, the character of the era, the fact he does not
talk about the socialist revolution, it's left very
abstract and vague, leads them to this form of organization,
which is equally abstract and vague and amorphous in in terms

(37:20):
of what it does. It does not channel in a
coherent manner. They have a clear policy, for
example, of not intervening in the trade unions.
They have LFI members who are members of the trade.
That's quite incredible. But as an organization, they
don't intervene in the trade unions.
And there's a bit of tradition in that in France, even the
Communist Party has this idea that keep the industrial wings

(37:40):
entirely separate to the political wing, which is which,
which is wrong. But they take the taken that
idea up in throughout the whole book.
It only mentioned Solstice and wants to say that that this is
not the issue of the old socialist revolution because
that will frighten people with this new period of the citizens

(38:03):
revolution, which is left as an amorphous vagary.
Frighten witch people, I wonder.Well.
That's part of the problem, I guess.
I think we can start to wrap this up, Tony.
We've got CWI has a presence in France with the revolutionary
Left Gorge. Revolutionary Gorge.

(38:24):
Revolutionary. Yeah.
And so we are there on the ground where LFI and Mellenchon
are at on the ground as well. What's our what's just let's
finish by saying what our relationship is to LFI in France
and what are we demanding of Mellenchon?
What do we propose for LFI to dowell?
We we are involved in LFI. We have comrade comrade in

(38:47):
Rowan, who's a councillor for LFI, because it's the most
substantial force on the left and it does attract an important
layer, particularly of younger people, but it's not yet there.
As a Workers Party, our proposals and demands are that
the LFI should strengthen its position, transform itself into

(39:08):
a proper combative party of the working class with a clear
objective of fighting for socialism, and then we propose
the structures for branches of proper democratic conference,
etcetera. Intervention in the trade
unions. Intervention in the trade unions
we support not not separating the two struggles apart and to

(39:29):
scrap what they've had, which isnow unfortunately being taken up
by your party in Britain. The idea you don't elect
delegates, you simply have delegates when National Assembly
are chosen on the basis of a lottery, which is not on the
basis of a properly worked out democratic discussion of
delegates being elected. Subjects of recall but elected

(39:51):
reflect based on their programmeand the ideas that they do.
Sounds more like the laws of probability than the laws of.
Revolution. Well, exactly.
OK, Well, thank you very much, Tony, and thank you to our
listeners. You've been listening to
Socialist World podcast, broughtto you by the Committee for
Workers International. The Committee for Workers

(40:21):
International is organized on every continent.
If you would like to join us andget active building the CWR in
your part of the world, please visit
[e-mail] here.
You can also subscribe to our weekly e-mail newsletter and
support our work by making a donation.
If you have any question or comment about the podcast,

(40:44):
please let us know and we may try and respond in future
episodes.