Jospin is dead. What remains of him? As one of the last representatives of an "old-school" Socialist Party, revisiting his career and legacy can enrich our reflections and libertarian critiques of reformism, both past and present. ---- The death of Lionel Jospin on March 22nd went largely unnoticed. This is not surprising in the anarchist press, but it raises more questions in the mainstream media. For a figure who was Prime Minister for nearly five years and First Secretary of the Socialist Party (PS) for almost ten, one might have expected a greater response.
Taking Stock, Calmly
Perhaps Jospin's image seems out of step with the world of 2026. Firstly, because in a world where we are constantly told that any improvement in social rights is impossible, Jospin's record gives pause for thought. For while we will not forget the darker aspects of his actions, such as the countless privatizations carried out under his governments - CIC, Air France, Thales (Thomson CSF at the time), France Telecom (now Orange)... - he also boasts the best government social record in decades. The implementation of the 35-hour workweek, the creation of universal health coverage (CMU) which guarantees access to health insurance for everyone, and of State Medical Aid (AME) which provides medical care for undocumented immigrants, the creation of the PACS (Civil Solidarity Pact) which paved the way for marriage equality... These are measures that are now, for the most part, heavily attacked by the right and far right.
The other point that probably bothers television commentators is Jospin's background. Having been involved with the Internationalist Communist Organization (OCI), a Trotskyist organization led by Pierre Lambert, Jospin initially joined the Socialist Party with the aim of infiltrating it. Trained in the OCI for several years, Jospin thus started with a political background that included a solid understanding of revolutionary frameworks. It was clearly his contact with power that led him to switch sides. When, in 1982, while serving as a member of parliament, a Paris city councilor, and First Secretary of the Socialist Party, Lambert asked him to denounce the Mitterrand government's "austerity turn," Jospin refused. Lambert would later say that "Jospin had acquired a taste for the delights of power"[1].
That Jospin had acquired a taste for power is not impossible, but the question can be framed differently. It seems more likely that exercising power within the state apparatus itself simply influenced his perspectives. During the austerity turn, revolutionaries of all stripes saw only the perverse effects of a capitalist system to be dismantled, a system that imposed false solutions favorable to capital. But from the perspective of a state whose power was entirely intertwined with that of capital, the situation offered no alternative.
Is Trotskyism compatible with the state? To understand Mitterrand's liberal shift, its context must be analyzed. This reversal was not due to a sudden change of mood, but to the economic pressure generated by a complex global context, in the wake of the second oil crisis. Between 1978 and 1981, the price of oil increased 2.7 times as a result of several events: the Iranian Revolution in 1978, and the start of the Iran-Iraq War in 1980, in particular. Amid the global economic slump, and at a time when the single European currency did not yet exist, France began to suffer the economic consequences of the crisis, in a Europe where neoliberalism was gaining momentum. The austerity measures taken in 1982 and 1983 were initially presented as a temporary measure, "necessary" due to the circumstances.
It is worth remembering here that governments are not filled with demonic figures intent on oppressing the population while laughing maliciously: no, our "leaders" generally try to do their best, according to their own frameworks. It is simply these frameworks that are often biased by the influence of capitalist and state forces, leading them to prioritize particular interests. In Jospin's case, it is safe to assume that while his Trotskyist training may have fostered a sincere conviction in the need to fight for human emancipation, his years immersed in the most entrenched structures of the state-from the ENA (National School of Administration) to the National Assembly, by way of the Socialist Party-could not have left his worldview untouched, inevitably influenced by liberal and capitalist perspectives. This leads to a conviction that is probably also sincere: improving the human condition will require negotiation with capitalism and sound economic management, which will allow for the implementation of reforms, duly financed by a "healthy" economy, thus ensuring the well-being of the state through taxation.
At a time when Mitterrand was campaigning by proclaiming, "Anyone who does not accept a break with[...]capitalist society[...]cannot be a member of the Socialist Party," one can understand the idea that a gradual exit from capitalism might exist, driven by a series of reforms that would slowly erode the power of capital. This is what this article calls "sincere reformism": the genuine belief in the possibility of ending capitalism step by step, without revolutionary upheaval.
If Jospin's figure is often unfamiliar to younger activists, it's because of his withdrawal from political life in 2002, after failing to qualify for the second round of the presidential election, thus opening the door to the far right for the first time.
Fondapol
Revolutionary graduate of the École Nationale d'Administration (ENA)
In 2026, it might be easy for us to harshly judge this analysis, as history has shown us that the austerity turn was anything but temporary, and that the social gains of the Socialist Party (PS), almost all of which are now threatened, had to be financed by privatizations. But we must have the humility to remember that in the 1980s, when it had become clear that the Russian Revolution had given birth to an authoritarian and imperialist monster, and when Trotskyist currents were groping for the right path forward, the idea of an anti-capitalist reformist path could make sense to a revolutionary graduate of the ENA. However, it must also be emphasized that around Jospin, revolutionary organizations kept a cool head and were already well-versed in the dead end of reformism: it is surely too idealistic to think that one can cozy up to the institutions of power without adopting their codes and analytical frameworks.
How are the reformists faring in 2026? For now, at the start of this presidential election year, the electoral barometer shows them in rather good shape. LFI, EELV, and the PCF are currently their main representatives. We will no longer discuss the Socialist Party (PS) and its satellites, which abandoned any promise of real social progress long ago, with the electoral and popular success we know. And within this trio, as we discussed last month[2], it is LFI that, by far, has built a hegemonic position in the landscape of the electoral left. Can we expect anything other than Jospin's PS from them?
If we believe that convictions are the product of the personal journeys of those who hold them, then Mélenchon's trajectory might lead us to doubt that he can conduct better policies than Jospin. After a childhood in a Pied-Noir family, like Jospin, he received his political training among the Trotskyists of the OCI, before quickly and early integration into the workings of the Socialist Party (PS) and the state, which led him, as early as 1986, to become the youngest senator in France at the age of 35. This continued until his time in government in 2000, where he served as Minister Delegate for Vocational Education under... Jospin. It wasn't until 2009 that, finding himself in a significant minority within the PS, he left to found the Left Party (PG), then La France Insoumise in 2016, a transformation never truly explained by the candidate, but which some PG activists interpreted at the time as a desire to dismantle the party's democratic structure.
Anti-capitalists?
What does that amount to in terms of ideas? Reading the LFI (La France Insoumise) platform, while there aren't many mentions of capitalism, we do find that "the new France must set itself the objective of breaking with capitalism" to overcome the ecological crisis. Not bad, even if Mitterrand's past lyrical pronouncements should already give us pause. To delve deeper, it's interesting to examine some recent exchanges the LFI candidate had with various interlocutors, including with Frédéric Lordon on the program Hors-Série[3], and with PCF (French Communist Party) elected official Stéphane Peu and LFI MP Aurélie Trouvé[4], on the topic of capitalism. While Mélenchon once again demonstrates his oratorical skills, he consistently sidesteps the question of the end of capitalism. But when Stéphane Peu asked him if he wanted to fight the capitalists, Mélenchon finally answered in the negative, indicating that for him, the real issue was the "oligarchy".
These substantive exchanges have the merit of, albeit laboriously, clarifying matters: within LFI, the "anti" in "anti-capitalist" should be understood as the "anti" in "antibiotic": just as antibiotics thankfully do not seek to kill all living things-the "organic"-LFI unfortunately does not seek to destroy capitalism as a whole, but only to smooth its rough edges by attacking its most visibly anti-social elements. Just as antibiotics actually seek to preserve life by eliminating pathogens from the organism, LFI ultimately seeks to maintain capitalism by trying to calm its most harmful outgrowths. Given such a political landscape, we can only warn friends and comrades who might be tempted by the siren call of reformism in 2027: if you were critical and disappointed by the Socialist Party of Mitterrand and Jospin, everything suggests that it will be similar with La France Insoumise (LFI) under Mélenchon. And while we will remain critical of the majority of Jospin's record, we can at least acknowledge his fight for gains that are still relevant today, and, despite our disagreements, salute one of the last representatives of a reformism that was, perhaps, genuinely anti-capitalist.
N. Bartosek (UCL Alsace)
Submit
[1]"Jospin's 'entryism' as seen by Lambert," Le Monde, November 22, 2002.
[2]"Presidential Election 2027: Elections, traps for fools, and what next?"[3]"La France insoumise face au capitalisme" (France Unbowed vs. Capitalism), Special Edition, April 10, 2026, 1 hour 30 minutes available on YouTube, out of a 2-hour 38-minute broadcast.
[4]"Can Capitalism Have an End?", Jean-Luc Mélenchon's YouTube channel, April 9, 2026, 2 hours 25 minutes.
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Point-de-vue-Avec-Jospin-la-mort-du-reformisme-sincere
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten