PARIS — In the last decade France has provided some of the most important examples of workers' capacity to struggle against the power of capital, and in December the small French city of Nice was added to the list of the sites of struggle against corporate globalisation. In Paris in early March, 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly's JONATHAN STRAUSS talked with FRANCOIS DUVAL, a member of the political bureau of the Revolutionary Communist League (Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire, LCR). Duval is a writer for Rouge, the LCR's newspaper.
Duval explained how the social-democratic government of the Socialist Party's Lionel Jospin, backed by the French Communist Party (CP) and Greens, came to power in 1997. "This came about 18 months after the 'red strike' of November-December 1995, mainly by state employees. The strike opposed the 'counter-reforms' of the health service and of the retirement rights of public employees, especially the railway workers."
"People voted for the left in 1997 because they were fed up with the policies of the right: with unemployment, about which the government had done nothing, and also with the attempts to change retirement rights and the health service. They hoped the left would have different politics; what happened, in fact, was that the new government followed the same policies in a softer and longer way."
There was one difference, though, Duval said: the granting of the 35-hour week, a long-standing claim of the labour movement, the left and the revolutionary groups.
Even this reform, though, has demonstrated that Jospin's government is not just willing but happy to dance to capital's tune.
The 35-hour week plan "wasn't what people expected", Duval said. "People do work a little less, but not when they want. People have less freedom than before to organise their working hours, while the bosses have more. Some people are happy ... but work is harder ... In the factories and offices the employers decide when people will work."
Unemployment benefits, which are determined by agreements between the unions and the bosses, have become another source of conflict, Duval said, as has the age of retirement and the level of benefits.
People are already showing their concern about the prospective changes to retirement benefits, Duval said. "There was a big demonstration on January 25, when both trade union federations were opposed to the draft agreement presented by the bosses. People were angry and afraid. Since then the [pro-Socialist Party] CFDT has accepted [the draft agreement], as it did on the unemployment system; in fact, there is a kind of deal between the bosses and the CFDT, which is more or less aligned with the government."
Unions back down
Duval explained how the CFDT, one of the two larger union federations, can make such agreements hold. "In France there are five trade union federations which are considered as nationally representative. Only one, even the smallest one, can reach an agreement, and it has legal standing. There is no vote among the workers."
Then, Duval said, "the other big federation, the more Communist-run CGT, is also linked to the government in a certain way, although not so much. In the last two or three years there has been a kind of alliance between these two federations: the CGT keeps its position in words but it doesn't act much because it doesn't want to break the alliance."
Duval said the proposed pension change had another more important aim. "In fact, most of the people who reach retirement age aren't working: 55% are unemployed. Nobody really believes people will work 40 or 45 years. The consequence is that they will not have a full retirement pension. This is another way to introduce private insurance for retirement, to force people into this. This is the real target of the bosses."
The large union demonstration at Nice may not be a sign of an opposition turn by these organisations in France, either. Duval said that "in fact the unions are not involved very much" in the movement against corporate globalisation, although "The CGT and some minority unions, the left ones, are more or less involved. Members of trade unions are involved, but acting as individuals."
"The movement mainly gathers [social movement] associations, specifically ones like ATTAC, and young people", Duval said, referring to the broad network calling for a "Tobin Tax" on speculative capital flows.
Anti-globalisation
In France, Duval said, one of the movement's main characteristics has been its link to food and farming.
"The best-known leader of the anti-globalisation movement is Jose Bove", a farmer activist who shot to prominence for bulldozing a local McDonald's store in the provincial town of Millau, Duval explained.
"A connection is made between globalisation and the situation of peasants in France, the quality of food and so on. The two main targets are the international financial institutions and big corporations and McDonald's, as both a corporation and a food supplier. This is, I think, rather specific to France."
Duval said the LCR's "thinking on the anti-globalisation movement is that we must build it in a large, broad way. A lot of people just think things can't keep going the way they are because corporate globalisation is leading to a disaster for a social, democratic and ecological point of view. They know what they don't want, but not necessarily what they want, or they don't want the same thing."
"The CP, which used to be protectionist, is less so now. It's becoming more and more social-democratic. The current which is more protectionist is the small Citizens' Movement, which is a political party, a split from the Socialist Party seven years ago, which is only known because the former minister of the interior is its leader."
"In the main organisation against corporate globalisation, ATTAC, this idea [of protectionism] exists and has influence in its leadership, including the newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique," Duval explained. "They are against corporate globalisation. They are against it for social reasons, as are we, but they think one solution is a certain protectionism ... which is not very clear, but they insist on the role and sovereignty of states and nations against all international institutions. We are more insistent about the social content."
"We think we must act in two directions: to build the movement with full unity, with all people who want to do so; and to defend our political idea that corporate globalisation is capitalism, modern capitalism, and that, therefore, while we can have some victories, the point is to change the system."
"But at the same time, while there are differences, there are no immediate consequences", he added. "There may be debate and dispute later on, but for now the movement is more about organising people and explaining how the system is running, and on that we mainly agree."
Left alliances
The LCR's response to the anti-globalisation movement has shown up a major difference between it and Lutte Ouvriere, the other significant revolutionary organisation in France. The two organisations ran a successful joint campaign for the European parliament in 1999, winning five seats.
"We think that if you want people to listen to us when we talk about destroying capitalism we need to be with people who rebel against corporate globalisation, even if they have strange ideas about regulation", Duval said. "LO thinks the movement is either reformist or national protectionist."
Differences with LO are "a big problem, our biggest", Duval said. "We had an agreement with LO for the European parliament elections in 1999. We tried to have a new agreement for this new, municipal, election. We failed."
"There were two main points of disagreement. One was about what to say about the second round of the elections, where only those lists which have reached more than 10% of the vote remain." This was not an issue in the European elections, which used a system of proportional representation, but most elections in France use this two-round system.
"We say people shouldn't trust the [SP-CP-Greens alliance], but we do call for people to vote for them, because most of the people we want to speak with will not want the others."
The second difference between the LO and the LCR, he added, was about who should be the candidates on the joint list.
"LO thought the list must have only members of the LCR and LO. We believed we could find people from the labour movement and associations who could work with us, but who didn't want to be with either LO or LCR, and find a more open way, where these people have the opportunity and the right to say something about the list. LO said we have no time to debate with people who are not revolutionary."
In the end, the LCR decided to "go it alone". The Ligue will present a list in about 80 major towns, 75% of which are of the LCR and others around and are called "100% left". About 25% involve local political currents, mostly with small splits from the CP.
"A major problem is that the crisis of the CP gets deeper every day, but most people leaving it step back from politics", Duval said. "They see what they have done as a failure and are not ready to start again. Also they belonged to a big party and are confronted with the choice of joining a little party."
So relations between LCR and LO remain key, Duval explained: "A socialist alliance here means unity between the LO and the LCR, from a national point of view. On the other hand there are many people involved in the new trade unions and the associations, who are looking to us for political expression, but they are not very fond of LO. They find us possible to work with, if a little old-fashioned, but they don't find LO possible to work with. This is a real problem."