The left wing of capital cannot save this dying system

At the end of July, we organised an online international public meeting to discuss the subject: “The elections in America, in Britain and in France: the left of capital cannot save this dying system”. In our different public meetings, discussions with contacts, in correspondence and e-mails, we have noted the concern expressed by the growing evidence of the rise of populism, as seen in the European elections, particularly in France and Germany, or in the electoral boost provided by the attack on Trump in the United States. It was therefore important to stimulate debate on this phenomenon in order to understand its meaning and to combat the ideological exploitation of it by the bourgeoisie.  We have already published several articles presenting our analysis of the phenomenon of populism and denouncing the ideological campaigns used by the world bourgeoisie to turn the effects of populism, the effects of its own putrefaction, against the working class. The aim of our discussions is to make sure that at doubts about our analyses, criticisms and suggestions can be expressed, to enable debate with the aim of achieving maximum clarity. The response to our analysis was very positive, with the participation of comrades in the meeting from different countries, speaking different languages (the ICC organised and provided translations of interventions into English, French, Spanish and Italian). In short, a lively international debate developed on one of the many problems facing the world working class and it demonstrated the validity of our initiative.

In our presentation we proposed three axes linked to the questions raised by our contacts:
1. What does the rise of populism reflect?
2. What impact does the rise of populism have on the working class, especially with the democratic campaigns which the left of capital is calling on us to join

3. What responsibilities does it entail for revolutionaries?
 

The importance of the question of populism

The debate focused mainly on the first two points. At the beginning of the discussion, several interventions tended to see populism as a “deliberate manoeuvre”, a sort of  “premeditated strategy of the bourgeoisie as a whole to inflict an ideological defeat on the working class”. The interventions of other comrades and those of the ICC did not share this point of view and sought to promote clarification through various arguments: “Even if the rise of populism is not a strategy planned by the bourgeoisie, this does not mean that the ruling class is not capable of using the effects of its own decay and decomposition against the proletariat”.

The rise of populism does not express the ability of the bourgeoisie to steer society towards its “organic solution to capitalist decadence”, i.e. to trigger a world war. A new generalised imperialist carnage, like the First and Second World Wars, is not possible today because of the reality of every man for himself, because of the impossibility for the bourgeoisie to guarantee a minimal discipline allowing the formation of imperialist blocs to take place. The exacerbation of the ‘every man for himself’ testifies to the fact that the bourgeoisie is on the contrary tending to lose political control over its own system, which is spiralling out of control in a dynamic where the scourge of militarism is accompanied by localised wars which are spreading and becoming more and more irrational. All of the competing protagonists lose out, demonstrating their inability to limit a growing ecological disaster of which they are fully aware, but which they are incapable of combating because it would call into question the  essence of capitalism: the thirst for profit. Even in the countries where the bourgeoisies are the most ‘responsible’ and the most experienced, their various political factions are increasingly divided and the growing influence of populism only proposes political programmes that are unworkable or unfavourable to national capital as a whole. Brexit is a glaring example, as is the vulnerability of populist factions to the influence of a rival imperialist power, Putin's Russia: or the vulnerability of these fractions, the AfD in Germany, the RN in France and to a lesser extent amongst Trump's supporters.

That populism is a mishmash of bourgeois values is undeniable. That's why high-profile capitalists shamelessly support it (like Elon Musk or Trump, for example). But this has not prevented Trump from becoming head of state and being handicapped in representing all sections of the bourgeoisie. And this is true in many countries. Consequently, the efforts to contain it are not a mere ‘theatrical’ game played by the other bourgeois factions to deceive the proletariat. The security cordon put in place in Germany, the rise to power of Macron in the 2017, the presidential elections or the meteoric rise of Harris in the United States, demonstrate precisely that the bourgeoisie fears the lack of losing control over its political apparatus in particular because of the danger that populism represents: an obstacle to the effective defence of the interests of national capital.

Some comrades expressed doubts pointing out that many workers vote for populist parties. But, what was made clear was that the electoral terrain is not one in which the proletariat can express itself as a class. With elections, we see atomised individuals, mystified and alone, confronted by the dismal future offered by capitalist society, and in many cases susceptible to the ‘simplistic and distorted’ explanations of populist politicians, who make immigrants the scapegoats, the so-called “beneficiaries” of the exploitative state's measly hand-outs and the main cause of poverty, insecurity, unemployment and substandard housing.

But if this is a mystifying and dangerous distortion, the one supported by the “democratic” and left fractions of capital is even more so, when they call for our support as the only way to stop populism even when they are the products of the same system.

In reality, what we are witnessing today is a growing discrediting of these traditional formations of the bourgeoisie’, precisely because their governments cannot stop the course towards crisis, barbarism and war that capitalism has in store for us, since they are its sinister agents and defenders.

Left-wing parties, bulwarks of capitalism
While not everything necessary to complete the argument could be developed in the course of the discussion, a debate also emerged in which an attempt was made to distinguish the meaning of current populism from the fascism or Stalinism of the 1930s, when the latter were the result of a defeat of the proletariat which had occurred earlier and in which the forces of the left of capital had played a decisive role. The current rise of populism, on the other hand, is not at all situated in a context of counter-revolution, i.e. the ideological and physical defeat of the proletariat. In trying to imitate and exploit this tragic past, that of coming to power of Léon Blum and the Popular Front, to piggyback on the image of “victory” conveyed since then by bourgeois propaganda, the New Popular Front in France is nothing more than a ridiculous farce every bit as bourgeois as the Popular Front of the 1930s in France or Spain. But that doesn't make it harmless. Quite the contrary!

This alliance, created in a hurry, remains dangerous because of its democratic propaganda in support of the bourgeois state. The Front populaire was made up of the very forces capable of enlisting and disciplining the population, particularly the proletariat, in order to drag it into the imperialist world war. Today, even if it is experiencing great difficulties and weaknesses, the proletariat is far from defeated.

This is one of the questions that should lead to a more in-depth discussion: how can class consciousness develop within the proletariat? What interests set it against capitalist society? What is the perspective of the class struggle? And in all this, what is the responsibility of revolutionaries?

We believe that we have assumed our responsibility by organising this international debate which has been fruitful and dynamic in terms of participation. We intend to continue by organising more meetings and more trips to extend this reflection, which we are convinced exists not only among our more direct contacts but also more widely within the proletariat

 

ICC, September 9, 2024.