Within the International Workingmen's Association, known as the " First International ," those whose theses would lead, on the one hand, to Marxism and, on the other, to anarchism, worked together. The question of the workers' movement's participation in the institutions of " bourgeois democracy " quickly became central to the debates. Anarchism thus crystallized around the refusal to participate in the electoral process, to the point that the slogan " Elections, a trap for fools " became practically synonymous with anarchism. While the foundations of the divide between Marxism and anarchism are far from being overcome, the electoral question deserves to be revisited within the theoretical framework of anarchism.
For the Libertarian Communist Platform (PCL), the current rise of the far right, whether fascist, libertarian, or religious , is central to all our reflections and activist concerns. Our primary response to combat the far right is to build unity among the dominated social classes within capitalism. We are convinced that building this unity cannot be achieved without genuine dialogue between the various currents of the " workers' movement ." And for anarchists-but not only them-it is sometimes difficult to engage in concrete debate with those who defend different positions. It is therefore necessary to challenge certain practices.
Let's be clear, several debates are intertwined within the question which could be summarized as follows: " What place should be given to the electoral process within liberal societies, in a strategy for building communism? " Untangling this knot is therefore the prerequisite for answering our question of the day in a rational way.
The first aspect is quite simple: It is important first to understand the role that the electoral process plays in the consolidation of capitalist society.
It should be noted that this question becomes irrelevant when the far right, allied with capital, seizes power. This is what is emerging at the beginning of the third millennium, where more and more capitalists are implicitly asserting that fascism is becoming the solution to prevent the collapse of capitalism.
Thus, a segment of French capitalism-for example, the billionaire Bolloré with his media empire, or the billionaire Stérin through his Périclès network, or even Charles Gave, propagandist of the " Great Replacement " theory-embraces a national-liberal ideology and supports the far-right's electoral strategy. This reality clearly demonstrates that for capitalists, representative democracy has always been a means, a kind of compromise, to maximize their domination and profits.
For the 2026 municipal elections, the challenge for the far right-that is, for the National Rally (RN) but also for the Ciotist party-is to strengthen its network and its local roots, currently structured by more than 140 members of parliament. The aim is therefore to win significantly more cities than in 2014 and 2020, where a system of local economic patronage was established. The municipal elections represent a new electoral milestone, pending the senatorial elections of September 2026 and the presidential elections of 2027.
We know that every sphere of power conquered by fascism, however small, brings it closer to controlling society and to concretely implementing its totalitarian project. As we can see, there is no equivalence between the fascist project and social-democratic compromises, however cynical. Preventing fascists from seizing power, including at the municipal level, must be an integral part of a comprehensive anti-fascist strategy.
We must therefore clarify that our first question is necessarily limited to the "optimal" political form for capitalism, namely, representative democracy. The opportunistic capitalist attitude toward democracy exposes electoralism, the propensity of social-democratic parties to participate uncritically in electoral processes. Anarchists are right to denounce the electoralist excesses of almost the entire political left and would be wrong to abandon them.
But denouncing electoralism does not constitute a strategy for social transformation . To transform society, ideological propaganda alone is ineffective. Or rather, this propaganda must serve a strategy based on understanding the inherent contradictions of capitalism that are likely to destabilize it. Within such a framework, electoral processes carry significant contradictions, provided that electoralism itself is avoided.
By comparing these two aspects, we can begin to reflect on the ideological corpus of anarchism. Our project is to move towards a political theory that provides keys to our social struggle. This will first and foremost require the construction of a class-based and mass movement, without which the rise of the far right to power is only a matter of time. And to achieve this, a unity of left-wing forces seems essential. But what kind of unity? We will return to this question.
Legitimacy of an anti-electoral approach
Challenging the electoral system in representative democracy might seem contradictory to anarchism's ambition to build a genuine democracy within society. In reality, this is not the case. For this representative democracy is largely a sham. In contrast, anarchists propose a logic of self-governance for society-an eminently democratic political form.
Let's begin by dissecting the mechanisms of representative democracy, as we know it in France. It is the product of a complex historical process. A power that the bourgeoisie initially sought to reserve for itself: after the revolution of 1789, suffrage quickly became property-based, the poor were excluded, while the Le Chapelier law of 1791 banned all workers' organizations.
This " property-based " parliament allowed for the representation of this class coming to power and for arbitrating between its conflicting interests. Under pressure from the emerging working class, the parliamentary system shifted to universal suffrage. Even then, this universality remained relative for a long time, since women's right to vote was only acquired much later, in 1944 in France.
Yet universal suffrage has not enabled workers to seize power, even though the proletarianization of society now gives them a large theoretical majority in the electorate. According to INSEE (the French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies), the categories of " manual workers," "employees," and "intermediate professions " now represent more than 70 % of the working population. Therefore, we cannot understand reality if we forget that our societies are divided into social classes with conflicting interests.
Today , one social class, primarily composed of the INSEE category " Executives and higher intellectual professions ," monopolizes the vast majority of elected officials. To take just one example, consider a Mediapart article from July 10, 2024: " The National Assembly remains desperately dominated by executives and intellectual professions, at nearly 68% (a figure up two points compared to 2022) ," even though they represent only 18% of the working population.
This social class, in alliance with the bourgeoisie, whose core is formed by the INSEE category " business leaders " representing 0.77% of the population, now wields state power for its own benefit. But what kind of power are we talking about?
First, it does not concern economic power, which is nevertheless fundamental and reserved for the bourgeoisie. The system of private ownership of the means of production results in a proliferation of individual powers over each company, and collective powers over each economic sector. Thus, a large part of the decisions that affect our daily lives-at work, in our consumption and housing, in the development of our living environment-are made outside of any democratic process.
Class mechanisms against democracy
However, state power is not insignificant. Regardless of class issues, society must be administered, as well as public services, and decisions must be made to manage public life. But various mechanisms have been put in place to ensure that elections cannot lead to a challenge of class domination.
In the real world, the major media outlets are controlled by their owners, who can thus profoundly influence election results. The ruling class possesses a major tool for dominating public opinion and doesn't hesitate to use it. This is certainly true of Vincent Bolloré, whose appetite for acquiring media outlets-newspapers, radio stations, television channels, and publishing houses-is boundless, and who then puts them at the service of the far right and its ultraliberal, racist, sexist, and homophobic propaganda.
Added to this are new digital technologies and Artificial Intelligence, whose levers are entirely monopolized by the " tech giants ." Their objective is not to offer a service, but simply to maximize profits. To this end, their algorithms encourage controversy, aggression, and verbal violence-in short, everything that generates clicks . The GAFAM companies consciously pollute the space for democratic debate and fuel the rise of the far right.
Beyond this aspect, the GAFAM companies are rapidly developing tools for population control. Furthermore, the sale of these technologies leads to the replacement and digitization of public services. This complicates access to rights for the most vulnerable: housing, benefits, healthcare, social assistance, residency rights, and so on. This further isolates individuals and creates obstacles to the organization of solidarity, the foundation of society.
Then, members of the proletariat, and their allies, are confronted with their real material inequality when expressing their point of view. Not only do they lack the financial resources equivalent to those of the dominant classes for organizing themselves, but they also lack the same opportunity to organize their time as they see fit for political activity.
Even more pervasive, class domination manifests itself in the social self-devaluation of members of the proletariat. They feel neither legitimate nor capable of participating in the management of society, nor do they trust their peers. They allow members of the dominant social classes to claim to represent them.
All of these processes have one major consequence: the exclusion of the working classes from political choices. Only 13.5% of the members of parliament, men or women, elected in June 2022 came from the proletariat and, moreover, mainly from intermediate professions, those on the periphery of the proletariat.
Of course, the mere presence of elected representatives from the working class in state institutions is not in itself a guarantee that their interests will be defended: a significant portion of them are likely to support the interests of the dominant class. But the near-exclusion of a social class from national representation still has major consequences for policymaking. This is something we see every day.
Moreover, multiple institutional safeguards, stemming from the Constitution, are designed to hinder any challenge to the ownership of the means of production, giving an almost absolute guarantee that economic power will remain monopolized by a single social class.
Thus, the primary role of parliamentary democracy is to mask this aspect of class domination, since all segments of the population are called upon to " democratically " elect the leaders of the state. The state apparatus can then play its role: to arbitrate and synthesize the fragmented powers of employers.
It imposes their unity, for the benefit of the most powerful fractions of capital. It exercises this authority over the whole of society, over pre-capitalist sectors such as small farmers or artisans, over cooperative or associative sectors; and finally over all workers, in many aspects of their lives.
The reality, as we have seen, is that state power remains almost exclusively reserved for the dominant social classes. It follows that voters in the " working class " and " employee " categories delegate their power to elected officials, and that these officials, even if they are sincere, are placed, when they accede to government positions, in a position of managing capitalism, and of being unable to do anything else.
To claim to pursue a non-capitalist policy at the head of state, in the absence of a massive social movement capable of overthrowing it, is like promising to transform a car into an airplane simply by taking the wheel. No government, however left-wing it may claim to be, can implement a policy that breaks with capitalist logic, except through some " accident of history ," except in the event of a global destabilization of the capitalist order. Even with the best possible constitution, without grassroots control over the delegate, no policy can be implemented in the service of the people's interests.
Does this mean that we must now abandon the political institutions of capitalism, as many anarchists urge us to do?
Unless there's an " accident of history "!
We will not revisit the fundamental question of building a massive social movement. That is not the subject of this text, even though, without it, everything said here would be meaningless. At most, let us simply reiterate the imperative of the " autonomy of the social movement ," without which the social movement risks being more or less subordinated to the interests of political leaders, overwhelmingly recruited from within the same social class, who have no interest in seeing the income inequalities inherent in capitalism challenged.
It's also important to remember that the development of a social movement is not independent of the political context, and that in the absence of a political climate challenging the legitimacy of capitalists to dominate society, the social movement will develop within a context that is far from conducive to questioning capitalism. Ultimately, the development of a social movement and the emergence of a " communist " movement that resonates with the proletariat are two processes that follow one another.
That said, in the 19th and 20th centuries, the anarchist movement was partly built on a critique of electoralism. This was not without reason, as we have already mentioned. The anarchist movement did not compromise itself. But, while it did not disappear, it became massively marginalized in almost every country in the world, and particularly in Western countries. Even if some of them rejoice at the rise in abstention, we do not see this as an advance in the balance of power in favor of the proletariat.
Quite the contrary. Abstention is often synonymous with depoliticization and withdrawal, giving free rein to the ruling classes to manage society as they see fit. And election results have very real consequences for daily life and for the very possibility of building an alternative to the capitalist system. How can we escape such a deadlock? Is it possible to find a third way between electoralism and abstention, these two options that allow for no questioning of capitalism, its social and environmental damage, and the explosion of injustices and violence that result from it?
Of course, if we had a detailed answer, we would share it with you. But we only have a few certainties. The first is that we cannot continue as before and that we must overcome the contradiction between abstention and an audible political campaign. Secondly, let us dare to think that we must experiment. That we will only find a way to build communism by acting and accepting the risk of making mistakes. Obviously, many trials and errors have been attempted in recent decades, and it would be wise to draw conclusions from them.
The specific characteristics of municipal elections
And so we come, finally, to the municipal elections. These elections have several distinctive features. Firstly, the decisions made often directly affect residents in their daily lives, and they know who is making those decisions. This proximity undoubtedly creates a different relationship with politics. There is thus a greater social diversity among candidates than in central elections. Voter turnout is generally higher. This can therefore foster a degree of oversight, more or less significant depending on the size of the municipality, by the voters of those who have been elected.
Furthermore, this proximity creates better conditions for the embryonic form of grassroots democracy to take shape. Admittedly, we view participatory democracy experiments with considerable reservations, as their modalities within capitalism lead to an overrepresentation of social strata possessing official, socially recognized " cultural capital ."
We propose a different approach. Here's why: Election periods are prime opportunities for political debate. No one really disputes that. In fact, it's the time " traditional " anarchists choose to conduct their anti-electoral campaigns and advocate for abstention. Or, for those who believe that abstention alone isn't enough to emphasize the necessity of social struggle, it's the time to assert the need for social activism. " Everything comes through struggle " is their motto.
Election periods are first and foremost a prime opportunity for political debate based on the concerns, aspirations, and demands of the working classes. It is this kind of political intervention, built upon these concerns, that we need.
But this implies two necessities. On the one hand, political activity built on a physical presence in people's living spaces, going door-to-door, organizing local meetings to first enable this collective popular expression. This painstaking work may seem tedious, but neglecting it renders us powerless.
On the other hand, to imagine that anarchists could wage such a struggle alone is nonsense. If we want to work with others, this means accepting to work with political movements that participate in electoral processes. And let's be clear: a half-hearted intervention in which anarchists participate in an electoral campaign without taking a political stance would be simply incomprehensible. This doesn't necessarily mean that anarchists must run for office, nor that it would be prohibited. But it does necessitate another struggle: the fight against sectarianism and division within our social camp, the persistence of which can only lead to one outcome: the rise to power of fascists.
What matters is the content of the political message. Our strategy must be based on defending popular demands, and during the municipal elections, we must focus on what can be achieved within a municipality. We must not perpetuate the idea that elected officials alone can solve all the problems. Furthermore, it is essential to assert that " local assemblies " must be able to oversee the activities of elected officials, and that the social movement, regardless of the election results, will continue to push forward with its demands.
These few elements offer some starting points for building grassroots political mobilization. Of course, all of this still needs to be clarified, but that's not the purpose of this text. It's simply about providing a glimpse into a political logic that will be concretely expressed in our activities and in our interactions with the working class.
Obviously, we will be far from the global destabilization of the capitalist order that we so fervently desire. But such an event cannot occur out of thin air. Our responsibility is to chart the course. Our responsibility is not to be content with ideological campaigns or empty calls for social struggle. Our responsibility is to engage in politics to combat resignation, to rekindle hope, and to revive the idea of the necessity and possibility of profound social transformation.
We must also, everywhere, combat sectarianism and foster a genuine Popular Front around which the interventions of the various political currents can be coordinated despite their differences. But for this to happen, there is a prerequisite. Anarchists must leave their ivory tower and their purism, and accept the idea of a pluralistic struggle for communism.
The Libertarian Communist Platform therefore calls on self-management, libertarian communist, anti-authoritarian, anarchist, and councilist activists to intervene in the municipal election campaigns to bring other political practices and participate in the revival of revolutionary ideas.
1. This is not to say that all religious people are fascists, but rather to point out political currents belonging to the far right .
https://plateformecl.org/les-communistes-libertaires-et-les-municipales/
_________________________________________
Link: (en) France, La Plateforme: The libertarian communists and the municipal elections (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten