the [FRENCH] Left lost paddling in the Strait of Hormuz.....

Jean-Pierre PAGE

The text below is inspired by a contribution in the form of an article on the "left" that I wrote at the request of the Valdai Discussion Club, and subsequently by a debate based on that article, organized on February 16, 2026, by the same Valdai Discussion Club in Moscow.

The discussion took place in Moscow. The following were invited:

- Jean-Pierre Page: trade unionist.

- Oleg Barabanov, Program Director, Valdai Discussion Club.
- Alexis Chikhachev: PhD in Political Science, expert at the Center for Strategic Studies, St. Petersburg State University.

- Radhika Desai: Professor in the Department of Political Studies, Director of the Research Group in Geopolitical Economics at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.

Also invited were:
- Vijay Prashad, Director of the National Sea Foundation.

- Augusto Soto: Director of the Dialogue with China Project.

- Anton Bespalov: moderator.

How did the left get to this point?

In France, what has become of the two major political parties that embodied the left after the Second World War: the Socialist Party (PS) and the French Communist Party (PCF)? But also, what has become of the political forces, mostly drawn from the urban middle class, that have emerged in France over the last thirty years, claiming to represent a left wing devoid of class analysis, yet frequently quick to lecture others? These are often groups seeking to identify themselves, in a somewhat haphazard fashion, with choices combining social justice, the environment, societal concerns, selective solidarity, and good intentions toward people in struggle, though with limitations regarding the forms and content of their support.

In France, the oligarchy has frequently supported, and continues to support, political alliances between the Socialist Party and a segment of the right and center. Macronism, whose leaders mostly come from the PS, is a prime example. Depending on the circumstances, this orientation benefits from the explicit or implicit support of the PCF and the Greens. A similar approach can be seen in Germany among the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU), the Greens (Grunen), the Social Democratic Party (SPD), and even, on certain issues, with the tacit approval of Die Linke.

Considering current social and political events, one conclusion is inescapable: the capitalist system has reached an advanced stage of decay, as demonstrated by the magnitude of the Epstein revelations, which are merely the tip of an iceberg of manipulation, cynicism, corruption, immorality, and nihilism. It is also significant that there is a kind of consensus among most of those who comment on this murky affair. They choose to focus on moral aspects rather than the substance, that is, the political critique of a capitalist system in accelerating decline. "The fish always rots from the head down." “

As we know, the Epstein files are a complex web of interconnected and inextricably linked figures from the oligarchy, whose interests are anything but philanthropic. They also include the names of individuals who claim to be left-wing. This aspect is significant in what it reveals.”

For too long, we have turned a blind eye to the relationships between multinational corporations and major investment banks with academic institutions, social and political organizations, and intellectual circles on the left of the political spectrum. This is despite the fact, established as early as the 1950s, of the existence of structures that were in fact fronts for the CIA (42), such as the Congress for Cultural Freedom (43), whose headquarters were located in Paris, or, through the AFL-CIO in the labor movement, through the American for Free Labor Development (AFLD) (44). Despite these indisputable facts, some still today pretend to ignore these practices, which continue to permeate the relationships between a segment of the intellectual, political, social, and labor left and companies and financial institutions closely linked to the capitalist system.

Yet, this financial support does exist and continues! Major financial companies contribute, such as JP Morgan and the Goldman Sachs Philanthropy Fund, as well as foundations like George Soros's Open Society Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Andrew Mellon Foundation, and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), not to mention USAID and many other institutions, including those belonging to the European Union. Most often, this occurs alongside governments or ad hoc institutions, foundations, and others. For example, it is well known that Brussels finances 75% of the budget of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and has been implicated in several corruption cases that led to the resignation of the ETUC's general secretary.

In Western countries, as is also the case in the developing world, all these companies, banks, and organizations of great variety contribute financially to the activities of NGOs, movements, trade unions, political parties, and academic institutions, including directly to intellectuals presented as “representative” of the left (45).

Through these missions and research projects, we find other significant examples of aid in specific areas, such as the philosophical and political work of intellectuals associated with the concept of “Western Marxism” or with “French Theory” (46), which is found within the “Frankfurt School,” which separates theory from any examination of the material reality of class relations. The intellectuals associated with this movement claim to adhere to a renewed Marxism, a dusted-off Marxism, an anti-Marxist Marxism, or even a left-wing anti-communism mixed with Russophobia, hostility towards China, and most often challenging the place and emancipatory role of working-class action, particularly in developed countries.

A whole series of concepts, most often abstruse and hermetic, are now used ad nauseam as part of a linguistic framework to support arguments and expert opinions. This is also the case with the notion of Geopolitics, which is misused. (47) Yet it is inspired by Darwinism (48), adopted in its time by Nazi Germany to claim its vital space—Lebensraum—in the name of safeguarding the Aryan race. This definition has since been appropriated by the United States to legitimize its national security strategy and justify its international strategies of domination (49). It is used extensively, as seen with regard to Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Palestine, and other states accused of threatening the security and daily lives of Americans. (50) This is precisely what Donald Trump recently declared concerning the US aggression against Iran: “We are conducting this massive operation not only to ensure our security here and now, but also for our children and their children.” “An Iranian regime equipped with long-range missiles and nuclear weapons would be a grave threat to any American.” (51)

This multifaceted activity of financial and political contributions by large capitalist groups is considered a necessary investment. It is accompanied by control of the media, publications, books, editions, conferences, seminars, congresses, the mobilization of artists in support of various causes, and the promotion of concepts aimed at influencing, among other things, left-wing opinion and those whom it might absolve of their responsibilities.

This funding contributes to the war of ideas waged by the bourgeoisie on a wide range of subjects, influencing the discourse and thinking of a left whose passivity makes it all the more susceptible to manipulation because it has abandoned its fundamental principles. To facilitate this shift, a system of communication and promotion of academics and researchers has been established, aided by watchdog journalists (52), while simultaneously orchestrating ostracism, systematic caricature, and simply the suppression of intellectuals or organizations that do not conform to the prevailing orthodoxy.

To exclude and discredit them, there are now even plans for jurisdictions to condemn any deviation from the official narrative, resorting to accusations of antisemitism or limiting the use and operation of social networks through European directives regulating their activities (53).

The goal remains the same: to politically and ideologically disarm those who claim to be fighting for social change, socialism, or simply for the restoration of the truth. (54) This leads many representatives of the left to become corrupted and to go astray. Not only to disavow their former positions but also to align themselves with those they fought against yesterday. This often comes at the cost of declarations resembling exorcisms, resignations, and caricatures, as can be seen in the defamatory campaigns waged by supranational institutions and lobbies in favor of Israel and its leaders, who are nevertheless internationally implicated as war criminals.

Through these acts of surrender, shouldn't we see what has led, year after year, to a capitulation, even an abdication, in the face of the demand for a permanent class struggle in favor of an anti-capitalist alternative to the dominant system? From now on, to be on the safe side, this would be reduced to choosing a political alternation in power involving the choice of the lesser evil through dialogue and class collaboration, through scrupulous respect for institutions via electoralism. The desired objective would be to contribute to giving capitalism a second wind with a more humane face. "When slavery is reinstated, will we have to negotiate the weight of the chains?" Isn't this the question that some have finally come to ask themselves?

If necessary, we will even go so far as to accommodate a certain radical rhetoric as long as it doesn't change anything fundamentally. After all, societal change reduced to a few references to Marxism, or a few banners with portraits of Marx, Lenin, or Che Guevara, can be tolerated as long as the question of power is not challenged. (55) Wasn't it Mao Zedong who denounced "those who raise the red flag, to better fight against the red flag"?

A New Situation

We have entered a new period in history, from which a completely unprecedented situation is emerging! Today, new contradictions, uncertainties, and dangers are appearing, but also opportunities, as expressed in the Chinese language to characterize the word "crisis" through the two ideograms: Wei Ji (56).

From this perspective, the war in Ukraine and the aggression against Iran reveal the weaknesses and failings (57) of an imperialist system whose supremacy no one seemed to question.

In fact, since the destruction of the USSR, we have been facing considerable and often underestimated political realignments and transformations. These are accelerating, while humanity is confronted with unprecedented choices that affect its very existence.

For example, regarding the proactive rearmament pursued by the United States, NATO, and the European Union, as well as their direct involvement in legitimizing the financing of the military-industrial complex, which, among other things, allows for the continuation of the war in Ukraine and now in Iran, the left is incapable of anticipating these developments and has ended up playing a supporting role as a loyal partner of the hegemonic system.

Thus, it is far from having taken into account these upheavals and the substance of these new alliances that have been formed, such as BRICS+ or the SCO (58), either by criticizing them or by overestimating their anti-hegemonic nature, which is one of their defining characteristics. Through these initiatives, the objective is, among other things, to break free from the control of the US dollar through other financial and monetary instruments, to put an end to sanctions policies and conditionalities, to interference and meddling in the choices of states, and to decide on cooperation that is beneficial to them. Are we not witnessing here, with what is contributing to changes in the international architecture, a community of shared destiny founded on win-win, on the right to development, and on a new movement of economic as well as political emancipation following that of independence?

The possibilities revealed by this evolution and its significance constitute an important indication of the world's trajectory. This emerging new world order may represent an alternative. Consequently, how could this unprecedented political space not now open a period of opportunity for anti-imperialist forces?

Thus, despite the crisis in international relations, the economic and financial stagnation, and the unprecedented social, political, institutional, cultural, and moral bankruptcy of the Western world, the left, for the most part, remains passive, accepting the prevailing ideas rather than challenging and radically opposing them.

Taking stock of the situation.

This evolution is fundamentally indicative of a long-standing transformation, well before the collapse of the USSR. While this momentous historical event has disrupted the established order and forced a reassessment of many points of reference, social democracy, for its part, has seen in this tragedy only confirmation of its analysis from seventy years earlier. It therefore remains entrenched in its hostility to the USSR, whose resurgence it perceives in Vladimir Putin's Russia. Putin, it argues, aims to reconstitute the USSR, or even the Tsarist empire. His strategic partnership with China constitutes an existential threat to the United States and the European Union itself. Isn't the mediocrity of such arguments an expression of profound disarray?

Thus, for example, social democracy, once a model for the Western left and the free world, has become a caricature whose defining characteristic is now mediocrity, embraced in both words and deeds. This is also the case with the illusory struggle of the left against the far right, a struggle which it has nonetheless helped to create, while austerity in economic and social policy has become the watchword of E. Macron's project of social destruction, with which the Socialist Party and all or part of the left are making compromises.

It is this orientation, and no other, that contributes to the rise of ideas of exclusion, division, racism, and intolerance, supported by right-wing and far-right political parties in Europe. As the Italian historian Clara Mattei points out: austerity is at the heart of fascism, even when it is administered by a liberal state. (59) Despite this dangerous development, it is nevertheless in the name of what are supposedly its own values ​​that the left presents itself as a bulwark against the far right, which is achieving electoral successes throughout Europe, leading it to power, as in Italy and the Netherlands, or to move closer to it, as in France, Germany, and Spain.

Escaping this schizophrenia would require challenging the patterns of adaptation and compliance with the "dominant ideology." The left is not there yet. With a few minor differences, identical situations can be observed in most European countries and beyond. Thus, for J.C. Cambadélis, former First Secretary of the French Socialist Party, capitalism is therefore "merely a concentration of global wealth without decision-making power (sic)," adding, "There is indeed the rise of the tech giants within this super-wealth, but there is no power that characterizes the oligarchy (sic)" (60).

This is why social democracy is definitively incapable of representing an alternative, as its social liberalism is perceived as the twin of right-wing programs. Blinded by a self-serving, partisan political self-interest, this European left most often appears absorbed by existential problems, refusing to take new realities into account, let alone draw the necessary conclusions. In fact, its opposition to the forces of liberal conservatism is superficial and purely conjectural. At best, its economic and social references remain Keynesian. This is demonstrated by the Zucman tax (61), supported by the entire French left, which was supposed to be a heavier tax on the wealthy when in reality it was about sharing the wealth produced between exploiters and exploited and doing nothing more than liberalism with a human face (62).

Under these conditions, the left's ties with the world of work, in particular, have weakened and have become virtually nonexistent in the case of social democracy. It addresses everyone indiscriminately. Rhetoric, ignorance, and superficiality are now another way of doing politics. What remains of partisan electoral representation continues to decline.

Social democracy has, more often than not, shifted from acquiescence to support and then promotion of the liberal model. Supposed to embody the struggle for social justice, it has thus become both the harbinger and the sell-offer of significant social gains. Essentially, the fight for peace has been abandoned in favor of aligning with the dominant militaristic logic of the American order. This has been achieved by supporting the European Union, NATO, and contributing to imperial wars.

More or less, social democracy no longer opposes, but in fact supports, the United States' desire, through NATO, to impose a forced militarization of European economies by revitalizing the military-industrial complex, especially that of the United States. As with the neo-conservative deep state, international law and multilateralism have become empty rhetoric. (63) With rare exceptions, the European left, in the wake of the genocide in Gaza, condemned the massacres but stopped short of condemning the proposed final solution that Netanyahu intends to impose with the support of the United States and the EU, even at the cost of exterminating the Palestinian nation. Several forces within the social-democratic left, susceptible to the Zionist lobby, thus contributed to the manipulation of hysterical media campaigns against a supposed resurgence of anti-Semitism in France, or did not hesitate in the European Parliament to promote a rewriting of the history of the Second World War, driven by Russophobia and anti-communism. (64)

Blindness, Russophobia, hostility towards China, neo-colonial arrogance, submission to the Euro-Atlantic order, and the abandonment of the very idea of ​​sovereignty and ultimately of societal choice have thus contributed to blurring the image of the left and leading social democracy and the political forces it influences down a perilous path.

What is the current situation?

For most of the forces that identify with the institutional left, capitalism has become an insurmountable horizon. It no longer appears as a counter-power or a useful and effective pole of resistance. In fact, through its betrayals, a relationship has developed between what it has become and the oligarchy with which it increasingly identifies. In other words, and as Antonio Gramsci analyzed, (65) the cultural representations of the ruling class—that is, the dominant ideology—have ultimately permeated the left to such an extent that it has abdicated what it claimed to be its heritage, its role, its mission, its purpose in the service of progress and the liberation of humankind.

It no longer speaks of societal change and of challenging capitalism, much less of socialism. It has now converted to defending the liberal system, its improved management, and anachronistic choices that prioritize societal problems as the alpha and omega of a supposed societal revolution founded on an exacerbated, emotional, and irrational individualism, whose enemies are the extremes, whether of the right or the left.

Thus, from now on, speeches and actions are identified with the existing economic and political order, including by claiming it as THEIR political vision and by working to preserve it, as illustrated by the Socialist Party's rescue efforts regarding Emmanuel Macron. The very same order that the Socialist Party had radically challenged just a few months earlier is now leading it to make compromises to allow him to continue implementing a war economy (66) at any cost, and with considerable budget deficits. Faced with such surrenders, the popular electorate is deserting the left, or even turning away from it permanently.

In fact, people are increasingly rejecting electoral maneuvering, partisan politics, party politics, compromises, the careerism of elected and unelected politicians, and the worsening corruption. In France, all these phenomena have become contagious, spreading from the right to the left. This deteriorating context encourages an increasingly critical view by citizens of the bias of the state's sovereign institutions.

Alongside social democracy, the French Communist Party (PCF) is itself responsible for its own electoral and political collapse. Once so influential, it is now but a shadow of its former self, acting according to alliances of convenience. The Eurocommunism championed by the three main European Communist parties—French, Italian, and Spanish—on the verge of power in the second half of the 1970s was a resounding failure.

In France, despite periods of tension and brief periods of questioning, the PCF has essentially remained committed to its strategy of alliance with the Socialist Party (PS) since 1972. This alliance has largely contributed to reducing its influence from over 20% before 1980 to less than 4% today (67). The PCF contributed to the election of François Mitterrand, who, once elected, abandoned all his commitments in favor of the European Union and Atlanticism. By gradually withdrawing from the political scene, the French Communist Party (PCF) has deprived the labor movement of its former role as advocate and its primary political tool for intervention.

Similarly, workers no longer identify with union practices, where employers' social programs, multinational corporations' plans, and the demands of financial institutions—from which the economic and social reforms of the Macron government and the European Commission originate—are now negotiated. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) has thus become the Euro-compatible benchmark to which the main confederations in France and Europe adhere. The ETUC's unwavering support for the construction of a federal Europe has become a reality that permeates the institutionalization of the trade union movement, its bureaucratization, and its professionalization, which is also a source of significant corruption.

This evolution has led to a restructuring of the labor movement, significantly diminishing the influence of the CGT and ultimately threatening the existence of a class struggle current in France, which nevertheless remains influential within company unions. The CGT's deliberate choice to revise its principles has resulted in a loss of cohesion and unity. Furthermore, the CGT's abandonment of its international policy is significant. This is evidenced by its declared hostility towards both Russia and China, its questioning of its supporters, as seen with the Palestinian resistance movement, while maintaining cooperation with the Zionist confederation that supports Netanyahu, its solidarity with confederations associated with the neo-Nazi regime in Kyiv, its support for those nostalgic for the Shah of Iran's regime, and its abandonment of the struggle for peace. From now on, the CGT leadership's priority is to combat what it calls the "international of the far right"—in other words, the political choices of Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping. This orientation has replaced the struggle against capitalism and constitutes a break with a prestigious history characterized by consistent and independent internationalism. (68)

In France and Europe, this political evolution of the left, through its historical representations, has led certain forces to seek to position themselves as an alternative, particularly to parties whose credibility had collapsed. By breaking free from the framework imposed for nearly a century, they very quickly occupied a political space that had been left fallow. This was achieved in particular by appealing to young people, communities, and the middle classes, by addressing societal issues such as the environment, racism, and gender, and also by combating the resurgence of the influence of far-right parties. Thus, the condemnation of the genocide in Gaza mobilized large mass movements, often initiated by organizations like La France Insoumise (LFI) in France. It was in this context that new forms of political organization developed, challenging the traditional partisan and representative nature of politics. These organizations quickly achieved significant results in political elections, allowing some to access local and provincial responsibilities, and even to hold positions in European governments. This was the case in Spain and with Syriza (69) in Greece, although this experience ended in failure, a political fiasco, and ultimately the party's alignment with the liberal order and Euro-Atlanticism, leading to popular disapproval.

France as the weak link in Europe!

As the weakest link in the Eurozone (70), increasingly marginalized, France is seeing its authority and credibility continue and even accelerate through the international positions initiated by Emmanuel Macron. Thus, the political upheavals of 2024, linked to three crushing electoral defeats for him, led to the dissolution of the National Assembly and then to a form of denial regarding the economic and social devastation to which he himself contributed.

This situation has resulted in social and political conflict and persistent tensions. In addition to a colossal debt, twice that of Germany, France now faces an economic and social disaster, the destruction of its public services, which has plunged the country into an unpredictable situation where anything is possible, only worse. In an unprecedented move, numerous voices within the armed forces are being raised to denounce the President's irresponsibility in military matters. Thus, several generals and senior officers launched an appeal for a critical debate on France's military involvement in Ukraine. (71)

It should therefore come as no surprise that a study in Military Strategy Magazine, by a professor at the prestigious King's College London, predicts a civil war in France as well as in Great Britain. This is not a mere opinion piece but a scientific study that only confirms the bankruptcy of a regime on its last legs, yet living in blindness and denial. (72)

Unable to establish a parliamentary majority, but holding the largest number of seats in Parliament, the left, comprising La France Insoumise, the Socialist Party (PS), the French Communist Party (PCF), and the Greens, sought in 2024 to respond with a new version of the Union of the Left, the NUPES (73), a political coalition with a program aimed at finding a solution to what has become a regime crisis.

Very quickly, this united left-wing alliance of convenience imploded, with the Socialist Party (PS) and the Communist Party (PC) breaking with La France Insoumise and choosing to continue seeking compromises with Macronism in order to avoid new general elections and, even worse, an early presidential election. Thus, the Socialist Party preferred to explicitly rally behind Macron with a stance that led to: "Above all, do not give the people a voice. No dissolution, no resignation, and no impeachment of Macron. A majority with Macron supporters and part of the right wing to keep our seats," denying the people the exercise of their sovereignty. (74)

Meeting the challenge, avoiding the trap.

This is the challenge that the people and the world of work must face, especially since there is an attempt to trap them in a false dilemma: that of everyone united against the far right. The whole question is how to avoid this trap.

For these reasons, we can better understand why the objective is to sideline, marginalize, and discredit the political and social forces that, despite the compromises made by some of them, can represent a possible alternative for social progress by helping to restore confidence in collective action. Therefore, if the answer cannot be a lesser evil, shouldn't we return to the real issue: putting an end to capitalism?

The plutocracy will never relinquish its power, especially since this power stems from the ownership of the means of production, from private property. Consequently, if power will not be ceded, then it must be seized. These questions must be answered, clarified, and objectives defined, for it is true that "he who has no objectives cannot achieve them" (75).

One consequence of the complete break between the left and the militant and independent practices of the labor movement is a decline in strategies for social and political struggles, in the close and concrete relationship with the world of work as it is. This is reflected in particular by a growing disinterest in economic studies, a pessimistic worldview exacerbated by rampant individualism, and a decline in the substance of solidarity struggles in support of the working class, as well as in the defense of sovereignty, multilateralism, and internationalist resistance.

Class struggle or dead end?

At best, radical left-wing discourse can challenge capitalism and its destructive consequences, but never how to put an end to it. In other words, this ultimately leads to the conclusion that there is no alternative and that one must adapt, share, and ultimately relinquish one's own ambitions, or even limit oneself to solidarity with struggles, but outside one's own sphere of influence.

To explain this shift, we see a supposedly critical approach from sectors of the left that like to present themselves as anti-imperialist, but never actually mention capitalism!

- Some argue that the oligarchic system has ultimately succeeded in achieving social peace by essentially satisfying the demands of workers in Western countries, who in turn have become bourgeois, embracing the pleasures of consumerism, cooperating, collaborating, and thus abandoning their struggles for a genuine break with the past. The response, then, becomes supporting national liberation movements in the Global South, even stripped of any class-based content if necessary. Yet historical experience demonstrates that political independence does not automatically lead to economic independence. Examples abound.

- Others go so far as to suggest that in Western countries, particularly in France, there is a predisposition among the working class to relinquish its responsibilities, especially its international ones. To demonstrate this falsehood, they go so far as to rewrite history by distorting the very reasons that led to the organization of a class struggle current within the French workers' movement (76). By joining the Third International and becoming the French Section of the Communist International (SFIC), the young PCF was making a coherent internationalist choice, which Ho Chi Minh, delegate to the Congress of Tours, summarized in his speech: "Comrades, we see in joining the Third International the formal promise of the Socialist Party to finally give colonial questions the importance they deserve." (77)

To illustrate “this historical flaw of the French labor movement” (78), which supposedly refuses to confront its own imperialism, history is distorted, and the Rif War of 1925 is invoked, among other things. In reality, this event was foundational to the first major internationalist commitment for the French Communist Party (PCF) and the General Confederation of Labor (CGT-U). With these two organizations, a new orientation was put forward: the defense of sovereignty, the national independence of colonized nations, and a shared struggle among proletarians of all countries. The PCF, the CGTU, the Surrealist Movement, and intellectuals like Henri Barbusse and Lucien Aragon mobilized within an Action Committee against the Rif War. They then forcefully affirmed an unambiguous anti-colonialist principle: “We proclaim the right of peoples, of all peoples, to self-determination” (79).

While the current orientations of the PCF and the CGT have become questionable, whether nationally or internationally, they must be criticized objectively based on their actual positions and not through false and biased interpretations of their history. (80)

This rewriting of history also serves an unfounded approach to the "structure of the working class," which supposedly pits French workers against immigrants. Yet, one could multiply examples of common struggles affirming a basic class principle: "French, immigrants, same boss, same fight." Moreover, this principle is found in the struggles for undocumented immigrants, the fight for freedom in automotive companies, and the struggles of residents in workers' hostels in the construction and metalworking industries. This approach artificially creates divisions and oppositions, and orients struggles by prioritizing communities at the expense of union and political activism in the workplace. Following this path would very quickly lead to a dead end and spare capitalism. (81)

If, absurdly, one were to consider that uniting the working class means uniting only proletarians of French nationality, there would be no struggles, no prospects for change. The revolutionary path to socialism necessarily passes through businesses, and especially the largest ones. Nowhere other than the workplace brings together the actors of the class struggle daily in the context most conducive to the collective awareness of the objectives and conditions for the unity of proletarians in all their diversity.

Any internationalist commitment would be meaningless if it were not based on this patient activism from the workplace, building with the workers themselves the power dynamics necessary to defeat capitalism and imperialism. One cannot speak of imperialism without speaking of capitalism. To ignore the crucial importance of the necessary engagement of the working class within the workplace would be to underestimate the social and political impact of the actions of millions of workers fighting against the pension reforms championed by Macron and the international financial elite, or to fail to grasp the significance of the dockworkers' refusal in the main Mediterranean ports, in solidarity with the Palestinian people, to load or unload ships for Israel, or to disregard the importance of the general strike in India, mobilizing 300 million workers.

All for the benefit of the company.

What would become of the substance of these large-scale movements without daily actions in the workplace? It would be meaningless. This is why the labor movement, in order to fulfill its proper role, cannot erect strange barriers between its internationalist commitments—which are not mere afterthoughts—and its national responsibilities. This is how it must build its usefulness, its effectiveness, and its credibility.

We cannot be satisfied with rhetoric and avoid the class struggle, ignoring the scope of these struggles, particularly where they are decisive—that is, in the countries where the levers of economic, financial, political, security, and ideological power are concentrated. This gives full importance to social and political struggles in developed capitalist countries wherever the capital/labor contradiction is most acute, where the working class and the power of employers stand face to face, where the wealth produced by labor is confiscated by capital.

To renounce this struggle would lead to conceiving of the anti-imperialist struggle only as detached from its anti-capitalist character, reducing the fight for socialism in both developed and developing countries to a utopia disconnected from the reality of the immediate and future needs of the majority, whereas everything must be done to articulate the two in a single, unified struggle.

Some even claim that the working class is on the verge of disappearing! What would become of the class struggle under these conditions? In France, according to INSEE, 30.4 million people are employed, 80% in the private sector and 20% in the public sector. Consequently, the class struggle in the workplace remains the primary arena for confrontation with the exploiting class. (82) The fundamental contradiction between capital and labor persists; France is one of the countries with the highest number of millionaires and where inequalities have widened to an unprecedented degree. In 2024, companies paid out record dividends, with the 100 largest companies distributing a windfall of almost €100 billion. (83) A recent Senate inquiry revealed that €211 billion in unconditional grants were given by the state to companies such as Total, Michelin, and Sanofi… (84) At the same time, in 2022, officially more than 15% of the population lived below the poverty line, (85) more than 300,000 people, including many children, were homeless, a figure that is constantly increasing.

This contradiction is precisely what must be confronted and resolved.

Therefore, it is necessary to assert that those who produce wealth must regain control over it. The left, for its part, will only regain credibility by taking a clear stance on this point, that is, by opposing capitalism and the hegemony it exerts over everything, by challenging and contesting the totalitarian right it has arrogated to itself over property, and by reaffirming the role of workers' democracy in the sense that Rosa Luxemburg indicated: "Today, democracy may be useless, or even inconvenient for the bourgeoisie, but for the working class, it is necessary, even indispensable." (86)

Let's take a concrete example!

The largest French steel company is the world's second-largest steel producer. Its name is ACELOR/MITTAL, its origins are Indian, and it is owned by the Indian billionaire Lakshmi Mittal. Its headquarters are in Luxembourg. To maintain its profit margin, Mittal plans to halve its production in Europe and lay off thousands of workers, particularly in France. (87)

For the workers who choose anti-capitalist struggle with their CGT union, the issue is no longer simply opposing unemployment, but concretely raising the question of ownership and the recovery of wealth produced, moreover, by a company of strategic importance. This is far removed from the social compromise advocated by some union members. The strike's slogan is exemplary: "We can make metal, without Mittal." (88) Faced with this slogan, the response from a segment of the left, and particularly the Socialist Party, is significant: they advocate for “temporary strategic nationalizations,” meaning a strictly transitional public investment followed by resale to a public or private operator. As this position, ostensibly supporting the workers’ struggle, reveals, it is not merely a technical nuance, but in fact a capitulation in principle.

For workers, the distinction between temporary nationalization and permanent expropriation is not a doctrinal refinement. “Metal without Mittal” has become a guiding principle in the name of which “workers are re-establishing a truth that has been confiscated for too long: the tool they operate and that the community finances must finally be governed by those who operate it, not by those who deplete it.” It is this "left" that can make the difference by building the necessary power dynamics through concrete action, particularly with their Indian brothers and sisters, within a renewed and useful internationalism. This internationalism is not about transforming reality, but about reducing it to mere external support through simple messages of solidarity, but about transforming the balance of power. Through their actions, the workers forced Parliament to vote in favor of nationalization. The struggle must therefore continue so that nationalization is implemented to break with the past, not to simply absorb the past, so that the workers, the sole producers of wealth, can establish themselves as the sole leaders of the enterprise.

What is decisive in each case is the class dimension. There is therefore a great need for articulation between the national and international spheres, particularly between social and political struggles in the Global South and those in developed countries. This is all the more crucial when considering the content of the national liberation movement and the alliances upon which it rests. Class struggle and national liberation are inseparable.

This demand for change in the orientations and practices of the left is, in essence, simply the expression of an unprecedented sharpening of the contradictions between capital and labor, from the workplace to the international level. It's the same class struggle that led the US billionaire Warren Buffett to say, "There is class warfare, but it's my class, the rich class, that's fighting it. And we're winning it" (89). That was in 2005, more than 20 years ago. Since then, the situation has radically changed.

We have entered this period of crisis and acute contradictions, which precisely signifies both risks and opportunities. F. Fukuyama, the author of "The End of History," grasps this when he states, "If we let our guard down, the liberal world will disappear" (90). The historical responsibility of the left, if it still intends to play a role, must be to contribute to this!

Jean-Pierre PAGE
Former Head of the International Department of the CGT

https://www.legrandsoir.info/la-gauche-a-la-godille-dans-le-detroit-d-ormuz-suite.html

TRANSLATION BY JULES LETAMBOUR

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.