Upon Jean-Luc Mélenchon – republications from ROCML
Image From Paris Match 14.10.2026
Face aux attaques de la bourgeoisie, La France Insoumise diffuse des illusions!
(In the face of attacks from the bourgeoisie, La France Insoumise spreads illusions!)
Introduction by MLRG.online
The situation in France has drawn much attention amongst Marxists and progressives. Many progressives have been swayed to thinking of Jean-Luc Mélenchon and his party – La France Insoumise” (LFI – France unbowed) as somehow more than a simple social-democratic force.
In particular, it seems that the views of the Trotsky follower – John Mullen – have been persuasive. In a recent issue of Monthly Review, he lays out his fullest view for support of Mélenchon (“Ten years of France Insoumise: a Marxist view “; Monthly Review OnLine essay; October 10, 2026).
Marxist-Leninists will not be convinced by the defence of Mélenchon, but will certainly agree to work in a principled manner with the members of LFI to resist the fascism of Marine Le Pen and her “Le Rassemblement National (RN). Marxist-Leninists – both outside and inside of France – must warn of Mélenchon’s social-democracy, while recognising that he has brought together a mass base.
But more fundamentally, what do Marxist-Leninists in France make of Mélenchon’s history?
One group of French Marxist-Leninists is the “Rassemblement des Organisé des Communistes Marxisme-Léninisme” (ROCML) (“Organised Gathering of Marxist-Leninist Communists”) whose two articles we publish here. MLRG.online has found them of help. It will be appreciated that these older articles (from 2017; and 2018) are not commentaries on the current situation in France. MLRG.online has remarked on the parallels between France 2026 and France 1968. It focused on the essential similarity being the lack of a single influential mass Marxist-Leninist party (See France 2026 – Is this a reprise of Paris 1968? MLRG.online October 20, 2026).
We note that in the second of the two articles given here below, ROCML states that:
“The ideological, theoretical, political, and organizational degeneration of the French Communist Party (PCF) has roots dating back at least to the post-World War II period, when Maurice Thorez suggested pursuing a peaceful, parliamentary path toward socialism.”
LA VOIX DES COMMUNISTES, no 24, septembre 2018 – p. 12-21; at https://rocml.org/vdc-2018-09-no-24-p-12-21/
How and with whom Thorez came to these “degenerated” positions – or revisionism – will need further, deeper exploration. In addition to these materials here, we hope to provide more materials shortly; more will be given at this site, on Mélenchon and LFI.
MLRG.online 29 October, 2026
From “LA VOIX DES COMMUNISTES, no 21, Septembre 2017 – p. 4-5;”
The election of Emmanuel Macron as head of state marks a new stage in the launch of a fresh offensive against the hard-won gains and living conditions of wage earners. The labor movement, which mobilized in 2016 against the El Khomri law, will once again have to fight hard to prevent the implementation of the “Macron ordinances.”
[An explanatory note from MLRG.online. Although the following extract from Grokipedia uses a euphemistically ‘neutral’ phrasing – it may be useful:
“The El Khomri law, officially Loi n° 2016-1088 du 8 août 2016… Named after Labor Minister Myriam El Khomri… is a comprehensive reform of the French Labor Code enacted to enhance labor market adaptability, prioritize enterprise-level collective bargaining, and facilitate employment preservation amid chronic structural unemployment. The legislation sought to balance worker protections with economic competitiveness by decentralizing regulatory authority from national to company-specific agreements, thereby allowing tailored responses to firm-specific needs… Despite these measures’ intent to lower unemployment—projected at around 10%—through deregulation and negotiation primacy, early macroeconomic simulations indicated minimal aggregate employment gains, as rigidities persisted in hiring and firing thresholds. The reform sparked intense opposition, culminating in nationwide strikes, blockades, and the Nuit Debout movement starting in March 2016, with unions decrying erosion of safeguards against arbitrary dismissals and excessive flexibility favoring employers over workers. Enacted via Article 49.3 of the Constitution to bypass parliamentary deadlock, the law highlighted deep divisions over causal links between rigidity and unemployment,… etc]
Dominated by reformist ideas – both in its trade union demands and in its political struggles – the labor movement currently lacks the tools to defeat the Macron government, which, for its part, is more than willing to wage class war [Original ROCML note 1. One need only look at the repressive measures—such as the repeated extension of the state of emergency and the crackdowns on various demonstrations: in Bure against the burial of nuclear waste, in Bordeaux against an anti-fascist space, and at various gatherings of the “social front” (front social)…]
Mélenchon, La France Insoumise (LFI), and the French Communist Party (PCF) do not constitute the political leadership the labor movement needs to defeat the offensive of capital. It is no coincidence that ever since a true communist party – worthy of the name – ceased to exist in France, the labor movement has suffered nothing but defeats. Why does reformism lead workers to defeat?
Reformism offers no political or critical analysis of imperialist capitalism.
In economic terms, it limits itself to criticizing the excesses and specific policies of the capitalist system, without condemning the system as a whole: “From now on, we will adapt the system to human beings, rather than the other way around” [ROCML Note 2. Généreux J., Les bonnes raisons de voter Mélenchon, Les liens qui libèrent, Paris, 2016, 174 p., p. 55.].
Adapting capitalism – rather than overthrowing and destroying a system rooted in the private ownership of enterprises – can only lead to the enrichment of a minority at the expense of the vast majority of society; this is the guiding principle of LFI. Naturally, this perspective fails to grasp the nature of the capitalist crisis or how the system functions. For Mélenchon, the crisis is not one of the capitalist system itself, but rather the result of “supply-side” policies and the power of shareholders – implying that a different policy could be pursued. While an alternative is indeed possible, it cannot exist within the framework of this system. On this point, Mélenchon is entirely mistaken. French capital is attempting to cope with the crisis and its competitors by dismantling the living and working conditions of employees, aiming to make them “competitive” against workers in China, Germany, and elsewhere. The underlying objective is to sustain the profits of major French corporations. These companies do not act out of malice toward their employees; rather, under capitalism, a firm must generate the highest possible profits relative to its competitors in order to survive and grow. Consequently, no policy can prevent capitalism from restructuring itself in this manner. By suggesting that an alternative policy is viable within the framework of French capitalism, LFI merely perpetuates illusions and hinders the emergence of an anti-capitalist front – one that would organize workers to counter the employers’ offensive by building a powerful, countervailing force.
From an international perspective, Mélenchon does not offer a fundamental critique of the policies pursued by France, policies that we, as communists, characterize as imperialist.
On the contrary, LFI, through the voice of A. Corbière, [Insert from MLRG.online: Mr. Mélenchon’s spokesman] has come to the defense of the military and General de Villiers, asserting that “the consequences of austerity for the army are intolerable. General de Villiers’ ‘outburst’ is legitimate”[ROCML Note 3. « Budget des Armées: Le général de Villiers sera reçu vendredi par Emmanuel Macron », 20 minutes, 16 juillet 2017.]. What these budding militarists fail to mention is that these 850 million [euros] in savings are being cut from offensive combat equipment—that is, from hardware used for military interventions. Furthermore, Macron has not abandoned the goal of raising the military and “defense” budget to 2% of GDP. The question every worker should be asking is: what is this arms budget actually for? Naturally, Jean-Luc Mélenchon – that pale imitator of Jean Jaurès – provides no answer. He does not explain why the French army carries out interventions abroad. While LFI’s platform claims a desire to put an end to “Françafrique” (France’s neocolonial sphere of influence in Africa), it does not explicitly call for an end to French interventions on the continent or the closure of all French military bases there [ROCML Note 4. https://avenirencommun.fr/livret-garde-nationale-defense/].
Instead, A. Corbière has thrown his support behind General de Villiers – a man who embodies everything reactionary and imperialist about France. Hailing from a noble family and the brother of the racist, Islamophobic politician Philippe de Villiers, General de Villiers has commanded French troops wherever they have been sent to sow death in order to expand France’s economic and strategic “backyard”—from Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, the Central African Republic, and Mali, to the countries of the Sahel [ROCML Note 5. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_de_Villiers_(militaire)]. And what about within France itself? Does LFI support the continuation of the state of emergency and the militarization of society? The wave of repression against labor and democratic movements is also linked to the increasingly central role the military plays in society. Rather than denouncing the function of this instrument for the capitalist-imperialist state, Mélenchon merely deceives people and stokes their chauvinism and nationalism. Yet, it is in the interest of workers to denounce the use of armed forces to serve the economic and strategic interests of major corporations and the capitalist state – to the detriment of the peoples of Africa and Asia. Instead of decrying a minor reduction in the military budget, communists point to the lack of funding for education, healthcare, and culture. In 2018, cuts to the healthcare sector are set to exceed 4 billion euros, relative to estimated actual needs [ROCML Note 6. « Santé : plus de 4 milliards d’économies en 2018 », Les Échos, 27/06/2017.].
Finally, from a political standpoint, LFI makes a classic—yet unacceptable – opportunistic error regarding the State and the seizure of power.
Mélenchon posits that the State stands above social classes and can be captured through elections to implement policies favorable to workers. This is entirely false; propagating such ideas only fosters illusions about the nature of the State. As K. Marx and Lenin explained, “The State is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another; it creates an ‘order’ which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflict between classes”[ROCML Note 7. Lénine, L’État et la révolution, Éditions sociales, Paris, 1975, p. 12.]. “We advocate for a democratic republic as the best form of State for the proletariat under capitalism, yet we must not forget that wage slavery remains the lot of the people, even in the most democratic bourgeois republic”[ROCML Note 8. Lénine, Ibid, p. 30.] Indeed, whenever wage earners rise up, they are either forced back within the confines of bourgeois legality or met with violent repression for daring to demand “fairer” measures. The movement against the El Khomri labor law demonstrated that the bourgeois authorities had nothing to offer protesters but force. Democracy was not a reality for the vast majority of wage earners; rather, it served the interests of the bosses. Even when the balance of power shifts in favor of workers, the windows of opportunity to secure gains under capitalism remain narrow – requiring a highly organized, and often revolutionary, political force – as seen in 1936, 1945, and 1968. Contrary to the claims of reformists, the State apparatus cannot be captured through elections, as the bourgeoisie’s economic, political, and military dominance is simply too entrenched. To establish working-class and popular power, a party is needed that organizes the workers and fights to definitively overthrow the economic and political power of capital. For this, the electoral path is not an option – it is an illusion.
Article Two:
“38e Congrès du PCF: Il n’y a rien d’honorable à ne pas abandonner le navire qui coule”; or 38th Congress of the Parti Communist France: There is nothing honorable about not abandoning a sinking ship.
From LA VOIX DES COMMUNISTES, no 24, septembre 2018 – p. 12-21; at https://rocml.org/vdc-2018-09-no-24-p-12-21/
The ideological, theoretical, political, and organizational degeneration of the French Communist Party (PCF) has roots dating back at least to the post-World War II period, when Maurice Thorez suggested pursuing a peaceful, parliamentary path toward socialism. This process subsequently accelerated and deepened, particularly in connection with the spread of Khrushchevite revisionism. For a long time now, it has been futile to expect that internal party debates might yield elements capable of altering the characteristics of the PCF in a positive direction.
Nevertheless, ideas expressed periodically – in the context of preparations for party congresses – reflect issues that are not without significance. Regarding the contributions prepared for the party’s 38th congress, one may note a certain tendency to invoke the name of Marx, as well as the term “revolutionary,” more frequently than usual.
Across the various contributions to the debate, a dominant theme is the increasingly sharp electoral decline of the PCF. This situation is primarily attributed to the leadership’s abandonment of the party’s independent existence – specifically, its decision to hitch its wagon to other political forces, above all Jean-Luc Mélenchon. It is understandable that members focused on saving the party would be gripped by panic at the prospect of its disappearance. Yet, from the perspective of the working class, the question presents itself differently: how should the PCF’s political orientation and program be evaluated from a Marxist-Leninist standpoint?
Limiting the scope to an examination of a few arguments drawn from these contributions, it is clear that criticisms concerning the party’s “electoral strategy” remain detached from any consideration of its broader political orientation. While the party’s positioning in relation to Mélenchon himself is being sharply questioned, its policy proposals largely mirror those that have long predominated within the “Front de Gauche” (Left Front).
The key excerpts from the texts to which the following observations refer are provided in the appendix.
The 6th “republic
Mélenchon’s brand identity is the “Sixth Republic.” In his speech during the “March for the 6th Republic,” held in Paris on March 18, 2017, he stated [Mélenchon 2017]:
“The new constitution should render the fundamental framework of the republican social order untouchable. […] Above all, the new constitution must be social! It must provide the means to counter the ravages caused by policies of offshoring […]. And to combat the plundering and destruction of companies, we must place constraints on the currently absolute freedom enjoyed by shareholders—whether individuals or financial funds—who act as parasites and leeches upon the productive body.”
The document “France in Common – A Majority Pact for ‘People First'” (“La France en commun – Un pacte de majorité pour l’humain d’abord”), presented in 2017—which serves as “the French Communist Party’s (PCF) contribution to the presidential campaign, in which we call for a vote for Jean-Luc Mélenchon” – lists the following themes [“France in Common”]:
“Taking power over finance and sharing wealth […] From a new Republic to the renewal of politics […]
Investing in employment and individual development […] Gender equality, now […]
A France that protects, fosters solidarity, and remains open to the world […] Producing differently, for the sake of humanity and the planet […]
Going on the offensive to change Europe […].”
The specific demands subsequently outlined align both with those presented in the 2012 document “People First – The Program of the Left Front and its Joint Candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon” (“L’humain d’abord – le programme du Front de gauche et de son candidat commun Jean-Luc Mélenchon”), and with those found in the key contributions prepared for the 38th Congress of the French Communist Party (PCF).
“The privileges”
In the speech already cited, Mélenchon states [Speech 2017]:
“[…] workers must be granted constitutional rights that make them citizens within the workplace—for the Republic, which defeated monarchs in the public sphere, has left workers as serfs within the enterprise!”
In the same vein, Alexis Corbière, Mélenchon’s spokesperson during the presidential campaign, remarked [Corbiere 2017 ]:
“In a Republic, our ancestors are the revolutionaries of 1789!”
The French Revolution of 1789–1793 is also among the traditional points of reference invoked by the French Communist Party (PCF). Here are a few examples.
An article in “L’Humanité” [“1793, l’année de la guerre révolutionnaire et la maladie d’amnésie de la 5e République”, L’Humanité, 8 Novembre 2013.]:
“1793 laid the foundations for a democratic and social Republic. Concepts such as the right to work, national welfare, social assistance, equality of rights, and the proportionality of taxation were developed and enshrined in law. […] Today’s Republic should not act as if 1793 never happened.”
An article in “L’Humanité” [“À Vitry, la nuit du 4 août fait toujours parler d’elle”, L’Humanité, 6 Aout 2012] – references the abolition of privileges on the night of August 4–5, 1789:
“Those who own wealth act as they please, in a modern form of feudalism. The symbol of August 4th remains relevant today.”
A statement from the PCF’s National Executive Committee [“Face à Macron, nous sommes de toutes les mobilisations”, 23 avril 2018]:
“We call upon communists, alongside trade unionists, to push back at every turn by putting forward alternative proposals—[…], and to put an end to the privileges granted to the financial sector, shareholders, and the very wealthy.”
The claim that the revolution of 1789-1793 remains a relevant point of reference, combined with the objective of replacing the current Fifth Republic with a Sixth Republic, are two closely linked ideas. Such an approach sidesteps the necessity – fundamental from the perspective of Marxism-Leninism – of precisely determining the nature and role of the classes involved in the events in question. Consequently, it effectively serves to perpetuate the class character inherent in the society that exists in France today.
The revolution of 1789-1793 marked the ascent of the capitalist class as the dominant force shaping the economic structure of French society. Through the various upheavals – including the Napoleonic eras (both the first and the third), the Second Republic, and the rapid development of industrial productive forces during the second half of the 19th century – the bourgeoisie ultimately established its power as the sole ruling class. Since then, the so-called democratic republics – as well as the occupation regime from 1940 to 1944 – have succeeded one another, each exercising the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, primarily directed against the working class and the broader working masses.
Under these conditions, the abolition of any so-called “privileges” cannot in any way strike at the foundations of the capitalist class’s domination. Furthermore, proposing a “Sixth Republic” clearly implies remaining in continuity with the republics that emerged following the displacement of the feudal class by the capitalist class.
The pretense of a “revolutionary” orientation
Some of the texts, more than others, take care to include terms such as “revolution” and “revolutionary” in their vocabulary, alongside explicit or implicit references to Marx and Engels—and even Lenin. For instance, the text “The Conditions for Communist Unity” puts forward the following consideration:
“This is why we propose that the next congress decide to make Marxist theory the philosophical frame of reference for the PCF [French Communist Party]. Furthermore, we believe that a debate should be initiated regarding the enduring relevance of Leninism to revolutionary theory and action.”
The complete absence of any line of reasoning that genuinely seeks to ground itself in the theory of Marx and Engels suggests that these are, at best, purely declamatory statements. At times, such references are fundamentally fraudulent—as is the case when the goal of a “Sixth Republic” is presented as a means to achieve the “withering away of the state“[Brochure “23.25/11.2018 Congrès d’Ivry”, p. 40 59]:
“The ‘withering away of the state’—as an instrument of capital’s domination—must lie at the heart of any project for emancipation. […] To this end, we must set the concrete objective of a ‘Sixth Republic’ that radically transcends parliamentary democracy […].”
The invocation of the “withering away” of the state alludes to the writings of Marx and Engels. Engels, for example, writes [Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring (1877), Éditions Sociales, 1977, p. 317.]:
“When it [the state] finally becomes the actual representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous.” Yet, to equate this perspective with the advent of a “Sixth Republic” stands in total contradiction to Marxist and Leninist theory regarding the transition from capitalist society—in which the bourgeoisie holds state power—to a communist society, in which the state will wither away.
In his work “The State and Revolution”, Lenin sets out the analyses of Marx and Engels on this question [V. I. Lénine, L’État et la révolution, Éditions sociales, 1976]:
[…] “Between capitalist society and communist society,” Marx continues, “lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the former into the latter. This corresponds to a political transition period in which the state can be nothing other than the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.” […]
However, the forward movement from this capitalist democracy—which is inevitably narrow, surreptitiously excluding the poor, and therefore fundamentally hypocritical and deceitful—does not lead simply, directly, and smoothly “toward an increasingly perfect democracy,” as liberal professors and petty-bourgeois opportunists claim. No. The forward movement—that is, toward communism—must pass through the dictatorship of the proletariat; it cannot happen any other way, for there are no other classes and no other means capable of breaking the resistance of the exploiting capitalists.
Furthermore, the dictatorship of the proletariat—that is, the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed into a ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors—cannot be limited to a mere expansion of democracy. While it does entail a significant broadening of democracy—making it, for the first time, a democracy for the poor, a democracy for the people rather than for the rich—the dictatorship of the proletariat also imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, and the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to liberate humanity from wage slavery; their resistance must be broken by force. And it is self-evident that wherever there is repression, there is violence; there is no freedom, and there is no democracy.
Engels expressed this admirably in his letter to Bebel, in which he stated, […] : “…as long as the proletariat still requires the State, it does not do so for the sake of freedom, but in order to suppress its adversaries. And the day it becomes possible to speak of freedom, the State as such ceases to exist.” […]
Only in communist society—once the resistance of the capitalists has been definitively broken, the capitalists themselves have disappeared, and classes no longer exist (that is to say, there are no longer any distinctions between members of society regarding their relationship to the social means of production)—only then does “the State cease to exist, and it becomes possible to speak of freedom.”
“Social Democracy”
In one way or another, the main positions found within the French Communist Party (PCF) are rooted in the concept of so-called “social democracy.” In the current context of Emmanuel Macron’s presidency, the use of this term has receded somewhat into the background, yet it remains a point of reference—albeit one employed with relative discretion. Indeed, Macron himself has occasionally incorporated it into his own rhetoric [Emmanuel Macron, “Les labyrinthes du politique. Que peut-on attendre pour 2012 et après?”, Revue Esprit, mars/avril 2011]:
“Political action requires the constant fostering of debate. […] Political action is continuous, and debate is an integral part of that action. This represents the dual virtue of parliamentarism and social democracy—a virtue that our Republic still, all too often, tends to neglect.”
Philippe Martinez, General Secretary of the CGT (General Confederation of Labour), includes a reference to social democracy among his demands regarding the government’s actions [Franceinfo/France Télévisions, 5 avril 2018.]:
“Édouard Philippe’s statements confirm that the government’s approach is not in line with social democracy. […] When governing, one must not act like a monarch. Public opinion must be taken into account.”
He further elaborates on what he means by social democracy [Table ronde -Comment raviver la démocratie sociale?, 26 mai 2017.]:
“We should work toward a social democracy founded on progress, social justice, the redistribution of wealth, and quality employment for all—which includes reducing working hours, ensuring decent wages, enabling the full exercise of trade union rights and freedoms, and moving toward a genuine “democratization” of the workplace. This must be accompanied by a strengthening of the prerogatives of employee representative bodies, in accordance with their respective missions.”
Like many slogans, the invocation of “social democracy” appears, at first glance, to point toward something that “unquestionably” ought to be realized. Yet, when one attempts to define what is meant by “social democracy,” certainties evaporate. Relying on vague associations of ideas, one might describe it as a life of dignity, health, and justice – in short, happiness – guaranteed to all. But there is generally a chasm between desires and reality; bridging it requires, first and foremost, a clearer and more detailed vision – both of these aspirations and of the paths to be taken to achieve them.
If we approach the issue from the other end – that of “social democracy” as it is concretely and practically implemented by its proponents – we find that the concept of “social” democracy is modelled on that of “political” democracy. According to the official view, political democracy is embodied by the representation of the “people” through parliamentary and governmental institutions, along with the associated legislative and presidential elections. Analogously, social democracy is supposedly ensured by organizational structures composed of representatives – elected or appointed – from the ranks of “employees” on one side and “employers” on the other.
From François Mitterrand to François Hollande -passing through Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy – each leader has sought to hold out the promise of better times under the aegis of social democracy.
“We must give substance to social democracy,” declared François Mitterrand
[Allocution de M. François Mitterrand, Président de la République lors des vœux aux “Forces vives” de la Nation, 5 janvier 1994.]
Yet, by his own account, this high-sounding term serves merely to dress up the mundane objective of :
“helping to revive a policy of contractual relations that has lain dormant for too long.”
“I believe that a policy of contractual relations must remain the foundation for all social action in France: it is the concerned parties themselves who engage in the discussions,” he added—only to immediately qualify this by stating,
and the State, represented by the government, also has a stake. It is up to the State to intervene whenever it deems appropriate—ideally with the consent of the ‘social partners’.”
Jacques Chirac asserted [Déclaration de M. Jacques Chirac, Président de la République, à l’Élysée, 6 janvier 2000.]:
“By expanding the scope of social democracy, we advance democracy as a whole,”…
“There is the political sphere, certainly—but there is also the realm of contractual freedom and collective bargaining.” »
But be careful: “it is obviously out of the question for the actors of social democracy to challenge the parliamentary assemblies’ monopoly on expressing the general will.”
“We must revitalize social democracy,”
said N. Sarkozy [3 novembre 2015.], echoing a familiar refrain. That said – and more candidly than his predecessors – he generally stuck to more modest terminology [En mars 2007, pendant la campagne pour les élections présidentielles.]:
“I will rely heavily on social dialogue, which is one of our country’s major shortcomings.”
He gets straight to the point when he states [3 novembre 2015.]:
“I believe the workplace is the proper setting for negotiation.”
“We must have faith in social democracy,” said François Hollande [“François Hollande: “Il faut avoir confiance en la démocratie sociale”], Le Monde, 14 juin 2011.].
Following in the footsteps of his many predecessors, he repeated the same litany:
“The State must remain the guarantor of national cohesion and social order, but it has nothing to fear from granting a greater role to the ‘social partners’ in defining and developing labor standards.”
In practice, he aligned himself with the same vision implemented by N. Sarkozy—a vision aimed at undermining, as much as possible, any elements that might strengthen the position of workers in their power struggle against employers. This is the logic behind shifting the arena for negotiation increasingly toward the individual company level, which effectively fragments the collective struggle of the workforce. Thus, Hollande left it to the “social partners” to work things out among themselves [“François Hollande préface un ouvrage en faveur du dialogue social”, Libération, 22 septembre 2015.]:
“This new era of social democracy has yet to be written. It is up to the social actors to assume their responsibilities, and up to political leaders to grasp what is at stake.”
The obsession among all these political leaders with brandishing the magic term “social democracy” brings us back to what are known as “the sources.” Among the founders, Charles de Gaulle [Discours prononcé devant l’Assemblée Constituante provisoire à Alger, 18 mars 1944. Charles de Gaulle, Discours et messages, tome 1 -1940-1946, Paris, Plon, 1970, p. 395.] stated:
“But French democracy must be a social democracy – that is, one that organically ensures everyone the right to freedom in their work, and guarantees the dignity and security of all. It must be an economic system designed for the development of national resources rather than for the benefit of private interests; a system where the major sources of common wealth belong to the nation, and where the direction and control of the State are exercised with the regular participation of those who work and those who undertake enterprise.”
In reality, the concrete, practical application of this consists of a few institutional mechanisms: on one hand, the so-called “employee representative bodies” (works councils, staff delegates, etc.), and on the other, various channels for discussion and negotiation involving public authorities (such as the State Economic Council, social dialogue conferences, etc.). It must be acknowledged, however, that these mechanisms – ostensibly intended to lead toward social democracy – are constrained by a broader context in which the bourgeoisie – that is, the capitalists, supported by their army of commanders and executors (CEOs, managing directors, members of boards of directors or supervisory boards, experts of all kinds, etc.) – call the shots (mènent la danse.)
Jean Jaurès
As for “sources,” if we look back in time beyond De Gaulle, we encounter Jean Jaurès, who serves, in a sense, as a patriarchal figure for the French Communist Party (PCF).
The following is an excerpt from the text “For a Springtime of Communism” (“Pour un printemps du communisme“), prepared for the PCF congress:
[…] we propose a new conception of the revolutionary process, situating the question of seizing and transforming institutional powers—as well as state power itself—within the context of a “revolutionary evolution.” This approach prioritizes, across all domains, the hegemony of the wage-earning classes and all those who are dominated.
The term “revolutionary evolution” is borrowed from Jean Jaurès, who wrote:
“I was, therefore, always guided by what Marx magnificently termed ‘revolutionary evolution’.”
(“Republic and Socialism,” an article in *La Petite République*, October 17, 1901).
Jaurès is referring to a document by Marx – the “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League,” circulated as a pamphlet in 1850 – which, in its French translation, reads:
“If the German workers cannot seize power and secure the triumph of their class interests without completing a sufficiently long ‘revolutionary evolution’ […]”[At Marxist.org].
As an expert on Jaurès has noted,
“the original German text [German edition at Marxist.org] uses the term *revolutionäre Entwicklung*, which means ‘revolutionary development.’ The French translation is therefore erroneous, or at the very least inaccurate.”
[Bruno Antonini, “Esquisse d’une théorie du dépérissement du capitalisme”, Revue Nouvelles Fondations, 2006/1 (no 1)].
This way of conceptualizing “the seizure and transformation of institutional powers and state power” as a “revolutionary evolution” thus constitutes yet another instance of a spurious reference to Marx – much like the one discussed earlier regarding the “withering away of the state.”
The concept of “social democracy” also traces back to Jaurès [“Civilisation et socialisme”, conférence donnée au théâtre Colisée de Buenos Aires, 5 octobre 1911. Jean Jaurès, Œuvres, tome 17 – Le pluralisme culturel; Paris, Fayard, 2014, p. 380.]:
“Social democracy—socialism—can be defined by the economic sovereignty of the people, the sovereignty of labor.” The original confusion, which lies at the root of all subsequent linguistic contortions on this subject, is clear: “social democracy” is equated with “socialism.” Over time, this evolved into the use of “social democracy” as a substitute for “socialism.”
It is precisely on this point that Mélenchon cites Jaurès [Discours, 18 mars 2017.]:
“[…] our determination to build a new France by establishing its 6th Republic is in line with this fundamental idea, expressed by the great Jaurès: ‘Political democracy can be summed up in one central—or rather, single—idea: the political sovereignty of the people.'”
Appendix
Excerpts from three representative texts
Communism is the question of the 21st century — Common Foundation of the National Council [Brochure “23.25/11.2018 Congrès d’Ivry”, p. 11 34.]
p. 10 : […] five major revolutionary transformations that constitute our communist project. Opening the door to communism in production and labor. […] Initiating an ecological revolution. […] Rolling back patriarchal domination, combating racism, and defeating nationalism. […] Protecting and developing public services. […] Taking control over money.”
“Texte alternatif” intitulé “Se réinventer ou disparaître! Pour un printemps du communisme”[Brochure…, p. 40-59.]
p. 41 : The National Council’s proposal […] calls for a “revolutionary orientation […].” […] However, beyond these general assertions, the text offers no fresh perspective on what it means to be revolutionary today. […] In fact, by prioritizing the conquest of state power […] and the securing of elected positions within institutions […], the “revolutionary strategy” proposed by the leadership remains trapped in an electoralist illusion—all while failing to even address how our electoral alliances with the Socialist Party (PS) affect our revolutionary credibility. […] We put forward a new conception of the revolutionary process, one that repositions the question of seizing and transforming institutional and state power within the framework of a “revolutionary evolution”—a process that prioritizes, across all spheres, the hegemony of the wage-earning classes and all those who are currently dominated.
p. 44: […] A new legal status for enterprises—one that puts an end to capital’s grip on production and the appropriation of wealth—is essential to this struggle. […] The “withering away of the state”—as an instrument of capital’s domination—must lie at the heart of any project for emancipation. This entails a revolutionary conception of democracy, rooted in the proliferation of forms of self-organization and aimed at the equal exercise of all powers by every citizen. To achieve this, we must set a concrete objective: a 6th Republic that radically transcends parliamentary democracy through the continuous development of all possible forms of citizen intervention, the establishment of new relationships between elected representatives and citizens, the primacy of elected assemblies over executive bodies, complete transparency in public action, and a strict separation of powers.
p. 48:
For this to happen, the idea of revolution must once again become a realistic prospect. For this grand idea—which mobilized millions of women and men across every continent—was distorted by the revolutionary experiments of the 20th century; while claiming to stand for social progress, freedom, and even communism, these experiments instead produced brutal, anti-democratic systems. […] We have campaigned more for immediate proposals than for post-capitalist ruptures; […] and we have preferred to use circumlocutions to avoid the word “revolution.” […] Moving beyond capitalism clearly presupposes revolutionary transformations of the existing order.
p. 49: “The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.” This famous idea, introduced by Marx in 1864 into the preamble to the statutes of the First International, is part of the theoretical heritage of the revolutionary movement. Yet, the reality is that the Soviet and Maoist experiments did the exact opposite. Under the specific conditions of each, both ultimately gave rise to oppressive political and social systems. […] Furthermore, our experience suggests that—even without seizing state power—it is possible to implement and sustain profound, albeit circumscribed, transformations of the capitalist order, provided they enjoy majority support.
“Collective contribution” entitled “The conditions of communist unity” (at)
[Note: A multi-step process was undertaken by the “Sustain and Strengthen the PCF” (“Faire vivre et renforcer le PCF”) network. First, a “collective contribution” titled “The Conditions for Communist Unity” was published, followed by a call: “The common foundation for an extraordinary congress has yet to be written—let us take up this challenge together!”[at]. This resulted in the submission of the text “Towards a 21st-Century Communist Party Manifesto” (see below).]
p. 4: This is why we propose that the upcoming congress decide to establish Marxist theory as the philosophical frame of reference for the PCF. Furthermore, we believe that a debate must be initiated regarding the enduring relevance of Leninism to revolutionary theory and action.
p. 7–8: With its “transformation” (*mutation*), the PCF fully committed to the idea that it could make gains by pushing for more progressive policies—even when the balance of power was unfavorable, and even when those policies were led by the Socialist Party within a globalized capitalist nation. […] Given the Macronist political realignment—built upon the historic failure of the Left—this strategy can no longer be pursued.
p. 8: We propose a program of immediate economic demands aimed at rolling back poverty and popular suffering, establishing greater justice, and creating the conditions for a revolutionary transformation of society. […] Nationalization/socialization […] Re-nationalization […] Re-industrialization […] Development of public services […] A ban on layoffs and the offshoring of production […] A massive reduction in working hours with no loss of pay […] Restoration of wage indexation to inflation […] Significant increases in wages, pensions, and social welfare benefits. […] Retirement at age 60 with a full pension, and the option to retire as early as 55 for those in physically demanding or arduous jobs. […] Social Security funded by the surplus value generated by labor and the taxation of capital […] Price controls on essential goods. […] social housing […] rent freezes.
“Alternative text” titled “Towards a Communist Party Manifesto for the 21st Century”[Brochure…, p. 63-85.] [See above, the note regarding the text “The Conditions for the Unity of Communists.”]
p. 63, 77: […] a revolutionary organization for our time […] there has never been a greater need for revolution, for revolutionary ideas and struggles […]
[…] a body of ideas and proposals […] incorporating the contribution of living Marxism […].
p. 70: This entails a revolution in the social relations of production: the social appropriation of the means of production, exchange, and finance, as well as the management of enterprises; the advancement of job or training security, involving activities that develop the capabilities of every individual—moving beyond the capitalist wage-labor system toward a classless society. This presupposes a political revolution that, at every stage, wrests ever more control from capital over the levers of power, particularly those of the State. It implies an uninterrupted transformation of institutions, with decentralized powers for direct intervention by all social actors—by all citizens. This would make it possible to extend democracy to the point of developing economic and political self-management.
p.81: Starting from the fundamental role of class struggle in history and the role of capital, Marx’s critical analysis—transcending so-called utopian socialism—laid the foundations for a far more rigorous vision of socialism and communism. […] We must encourage the work of theoretical creation in connection with struggles and practical experiences, with the ambition of establishing a new cultural hegemony on the Left and throughout society.”
Translated via google by MLRG.online; published 29 October, 2026
