New far-left coalition
France's major far-left parties, Workers Struggle (LO) and the Revolutionary Communist League
(LCR) will present joint candidates in the European elections. The new list may pass the 5% hurdle, and enter the European parliament. Rafael Duffleaux In the past, Workers' Struggle (Lutte ouvrière - LO) has systematically rejected the development of unitary structures, particularly including "reformists" . Usually, LO has preferred to observe from the outside, as new social movements like the unemployed or undocumented immigrants (sans-papiers) organise themselves. From time to time, LO has given verbal support, or mobilised its own supporters to make a big splash, banners and all, at a demonstration called by a social movement.
LO has often justified this attitude by their refusal to build movements that include individual or currents "outside the working class." There has also been an organisational choice - LO has preferred to put all its energy in its workplace fractions, rather than disperse its efforts in what it calls "substitutionist" work.
This hasn't prevented LO spokeswoman Arlette Laguiller from attracting 5.3% of the vote in the 1995 presidential election. As well as her own popularity, this shows that there is a current of French society which is in revolt, and which she has been able to articulate.
This tendency was confirmed in the regional elections earlier this year (in which the Revolutionary Communist League [LCR, also participated).' The combined score of the two lists exceeded 5% in several départements. Most are industrial regions with a strong Communist Party tradition. In the south-western city of Toulouse, LCR and LO polled over 10% of the vote. Two LCR candidates were elected to the regional council there. The challenge for the left
For several years now the LCR has been trying to transform the balance of forces within the left, with a series of initiatives to regroup the more radical, anti-capitalist, feminist and ecological part of the left. Earlier this year the LCR proposed a common list in the European elections with the Communist Party, Greens and LO. A common list based on opposition to the bosses Europe, as reflected in the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties.
The LCR warned that defence of a
European project which serves working people implied criticism of France's coalition government. Headed by the social democrat Lionel Jospin, there are also Communist and Green party ministers.
The Greens were not interested. They announced their own European candidates, headed by Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a '68 radical who now supports the Gulf War and the Maastricht convergence criteria.
The CP was slower to respond. They rescheduled and cancelled meeting after meeting. In public, their leader Robert Hue proposed an list "with the Communists strongly visible," but open to all the supporters of "a different Europe." He implied that he would welcome an agreement with the LCR, but did not create any possibilities for dis-
In reality, the CP leadership was scared that the LCR would come to an arrangement with other far-left groups. Hue's advisors realise that unless they can attract the left to a list which reinforces the Communists participation in government, many traditional CP voters might shift to a more radical left list.
For a while, there were overtures to the LCR, and a little more criticism of the government's social policy. But, caught in a contradiction, the CP press had to reaffirm constantly that this policy did "go in the right direction." There was no way, for example, that the CP might vote against the government's budget. At most, they might abstain here or there...
This made any joint list impossible. The LCR couldn't allow itself to be used to support and legitimate this kind of balancing act.
Things were different with LO. There was a frank debate, in which the LCR challenged LO's total underestimation of the importance of specific battles against the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties.
LO even refused to take a position during the 1995 referendum on the Maastricht Treaty, arguing that "the workers will be exploited, with or without the treaty." A specific antiMaastricht treaty, they argued, would be a diversion from the "real struggle," and would cause confu-
France * sion, since some right-wing currents are also opposed to the treaty. Wide agreement
Despite these past differences, the two organisations reached agreement on the major questions of the coming European elections - resistance to capitalist Europe, the major axes of the "working people's Europe" we need, and a critical evaluation of the current left
The details of the common list are still being negotiated. Candidate lists will be composed on a 50-50 basis, ensuring equal visibility and (if enough voters respond) equal electoral representation. Each party will organise its own publicity, in addition to common propaganda and joint meetings.
The LO leadership has already agreed in principle. The LCR will hold a national conference in January to fconfirm its participation.
The idea of a common list has provoked considerable media interest, as well as animated discussions across the left. Unlike the LO-LCR joint list in the 1973 European elections, the current proposal is seen as more than just a Trotskyist option.
It is not impossible that over 5% of voters will support the list. this would guarantee representation in the European parliament, with at least four deputies (two LO, two LCR). Back in 1973, the joint list attracted just over 3% of the vote.
If it beats the 5% hurdle, the new list will have comparable score to the Communist Party or the Greens This would be a tremendous shift in the topology of the French left. And a positive catalyst for social move1. Ligue communiste révolutionaire. French section of
International Viewpoint #306 December 1998 5