Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:52:14.003Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deradicalization and the French Communist Party

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Sue Ellen M. Charlton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The politics of the Union de la gauche dominated the 1977–78 French legislative campaign and the postelection analyses. Undeniably, one of the most intriguing subjects during this period was the strategy of the French Communist party (PCF), its evolution over the previous decade and its apparently conflicting objectives. It wasn't at all obvious, for example, that the Communists wanted to win the elections. Did the PCF deliberately reject the possibility of governing under conditions which it presumed it could not control because of the superior electoral strength of the Socialist party (PS)? This interpretation was widespread in the French and American press after the elections and, of course, was favored by the Socialists. Or was the PCF as dedicated as ever to a democratic transition to socialism through a communist-socialist coalition? Georges Marchais, the party's secretary-general, insisted this was the case before the election returns were in.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 1979 , pp. 38 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For example, Estier, Claude, “L'Espoir brisé,” L'Unité, no. 288 (24–30 03 1978), pp. 4–6Google Scholar. See also Duverger, Maurice, “La Représentation proportionnelle: Nécessaire et dangereuse,” Le Monde, 13 04 1978Google Scholar.

2 In a debate on French national television, the evening of 19 March 1978.

3 The choice of this period (1968–1978) was made in the conviction that after the events of May–June 1968 in France and the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, the pressure on the PCF for change came to a head. The issues and conflicts surrounding deradicalization likewise came to a head.

4 This statement does not attribute special cynicism to a communist party. For virtually every party there is some gap between real goals (perceived by insiders or outsiders) and enunciated positions. The democratic centralism of the PCF complicates the issue, however, as we will see. On the subject of perceived, enunciated and real goals, see Castoriadis, Cornelius “L'Evolution du P.C.F.,” Esprit, no. 12 (12, 1977), pp. 41–61Google Scholar.

5 Tucker, Robert C., “The Deradicalization of Marxist Movements,” American Political Science Review, 61 (06, 1967), 343–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Tucker's analysis may also be found in chapter 6 of his The Marxian, Revolutionary Idea (New York, 1970)Google Scholar.

6 Ibid., p. 344.

7 Ibid., p. 345.

8 See the studies edited by Blackmer, Donald L.M. and Tarrow, Sidney, Communism in Italy and France (Princeton, 1975)Google Scholar.

9 For discussion of the continuing controversy over the significance of ideology, see DiPalma, Giuseppe, The Study of Conflict in Western Society: A Critique of the End of Ideology (Morristown, New Jersey, 1973)Google Scholar; Waxman, Chaim I., ed., The End of the Ideology Debate (New York, 1968)Google Scholar; Rejai, Mostafa, Decline of Ideology? (Chicago, 1971)Google Scholar. Thomas's, John Clayton study, The Decline of Ideology in Western Political Parties: A Study of Changing Policy Orientations (Beverly Hills, 1975)Google Scholar, utilizes a comprehensive content analysis scheme to test for actual changes in the public policy goals of parties. Fontaine, André, “Panne d'idélogie,” Le Monde, 1 04 1978Google Scholar, argued that Marxism is “an essential key for analyzing societies,” but that it is nonetheless a key “which does not open every lock of the human mystery.” He concluded by saying that France is “between ideologies” in 1978.

10 Tucker, , “Deradicalization,” p. 348Google Scholar.

11 This raises the issue of the “vanguard” role of the PCF. See Tiersky, Ronald, French Communism, 1920–1972 (New York, 1974), notably chap. 8Google Scholar. Also Denantes, François, “Le communisme, une patrie,” Projet, no. 101 (01, 1976), pp. 9–22Google Scholar.

12 Libbey, Kenneth examined earlier conditions for the PCF's ideological deradicalization in “The French Communist Party in the 1960s: An Ideological Profile,” Journal of Contemporary History, 2 (01, 1976), 145–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Tucker, , “Deradicalization,” p. 348Google Scholar.

14 Special issue of Le Matin, “Le Dossier des Législatives 1978,” 19.

15 The following are among the many descriptions of the PCF and CGT policies in 1968: Andrieu, René, Les communistes et la révolution (Paris, 1968)Google Scholar; Touraine, Alain, Le communisme utopique (Paris, 1968)Google Scholar; Kriegel, Annie, The French Communists: Profile of a People, trans. Halperin, Elaine P. (Chicago, 1972), p. 331ffGoogle Scholar; Johnson, Richard, The French Communist Party versus the Students: Revolutionary Politics in May–June 1968 (New Haven, 1972)Google Scholar.

16 Lyra, Rubens Pinto, “La Gauche en France et la Construction européenne: Positions et contradictions, 1950–1975” (Ph.D. diss., University of Nancy II [Section de Droit Public et des Sciences Politiques], 1975), pp. 89–90Google Scholar.

17 The lead editorial in “Les Communistes français et l'Europe,” Bulletin des Communistes français a I'Assemblé des Communautes européennes, no. 1 (n.d., 1977?), p. 1Google Scholar, stresses a statement made by Waldeck Rochet in 1963 recalling French communist desire for representation in the EC. The PCF had already moved in this direction by demanding, in 1956, “representation” for itself and the CGT in European institutions. Lyra, , “La Gauche en France,” pp. 105, 153 and 426Google Scholar.

18 Annie Kriegel, “The French Communist Party and the Fifth Republic,” in Blackmer, and Tarrow, , Communism in Italy and France, p. 72Google Scholar; Barjonet, André, Le Parti communiste français (Paris, 1969), pp. 199–206Google Scholar; and Lyra, , “La Gauche en France,” pp. 415–27Google Scholar.

19 Bordu, Gérard, “Parlement européen: l'activité des députés communistes,” Cahiers du Communisme, no. 2 (02 1974), pp. 94–102Google Scholar.

20 Le Monde, 28 February 1978.

21 Manifeste du Parti communiste français: Pour une démocratic avancée, pour une France socialiste [“Manifeste de Champigny”] (Paris, 1969)Google Scholar. Changer de cap: Programme pour un gouvernement démocratique d'union populaire, (Paris, 1971)Google Scholar. Programme commun du gouvernement [du Parti communiste français et du Parti socialiste] (Paris, 1972)Google Scholar. Report of the Central Committee to the twenty-second Congress and the final resolution of the Congress (“Ce que veulent les communistes pour la France ”), Cahiers du Communisme, nos. 2–3 (February–March, 1976), pp. 12–72 and 361–87, respectively.

22 Some observers argued that a strategy of “disunion” was underway long before the split of September 1977. François Fejtö traces it to 1974: “Sur l'évolution du Parti communiste français,” Etudes internationales, 6, no. 3 (09, 1975), 355–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar. More common are analyses emphasizing the events following the municipal elections in March 1977: Gilles, Paul, “Avril-Septembre 1977: L'escalade de la désunion,” in “Le Dossier des Législatives 1978,” pp. 80–83Google Scholar; and Allier, Iréne and Mamy, Georges, “Le dernier calcul de Georges Marchais,” Le Nouvel observateur, no. 673 (3–10 10 1977), pp. 39–42Google Scholar. The PCF argued that it was always faithful to the Programme commun, but that the PS seemed not to be, especially after 1974. See, for example, Hincker, François, “Pour la gauche, un impératif: agir contre la crise,” La Nouvelle critique, nos. 79–80 (12, 1974–01, 1975), pp. 6–8Google Scholar.

23 Tucker, , “Deradicalization,” p. 355Google Scholar. See also the comparative study of Donneur, André P., “Partis communistes et partis socialistes—quatre expériences de collaboration: II—Front national et Union de la gauche,” Etudes Internationales, 8, no. 1 (03, 1977), 3–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Tucker, , “Deradicalization,” p. 348Google Scholar.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid., p. 350.

27 Fejtö, , “L'évolution du Parti communiste Français,” pp. 356–57Google Scholar.

28 As exceptions to this generalization, see Fossaert, Robert, “La crise mondiale du PC français,” Le Matin, 3–4 12 1977Google Scholar (Fossaert is a member of the PS); and Dialogue à l'ntérieur du Parti communiste français (Paris, 1978)Google Scholar by two PCF members, Gerard Molina and Yves Vargas.

29 Allier, Irène, “Parti communiste: qui décide?” Le Nouvel observateur, no. 676 (24–30 10 1977), pp. 56–7Google Scholar. Compare this with the interpretation of Philippe Robrieux, a former PCF member, in an interview in which he stressed the continuing influence of Moscow on PCF leaders. “Communistes: il y a pourtant des raisons d'espérer,” Le Nouvel observateur, no. 690 (30 01–5 02 1978), pp. 38–9Google Scholar. On Marchais as an “organization man,” see also Johnson, , French Communist Party vs. Students, pp. 95, 98–100Google Scholar.

30 Allier, , “Parti communiste: qui décide?” p. 57Google Scholar.

31 Ibid.

32 For example, the following (all in Le Monde): the article by Hélène Parmelin, 5–6 March 1978; the letter signed by several party intellectuals, 6 April 1978; the series by Jean Ellenstein, 13, 14 and 15 April 1978; the article by Jean-Michel Deviers, 22 April 1978; and the series by Louis Althusser, 25, 26, 27 and 28 April 1978. See also the position of Rony, Jean, a PCF member since 1949 and on the editorial staffs of two important party publications, France nouvelle and La Nouvelle critique: an interview in Politique Hebdo, no. 308 (10–23 04 1978), pp. 7–9Google Scholar, and his book, Trente ans de parti (Paris, 1978)Google Scholar. Issue no. 308 of Politique Hebdo contains several articles which suggest how positions taken by non-PCF members may encourage conflicts within the party.

33 In a few cases, the disagreement did go so far as open revolt: Jacques Fremontier resigned from his position as editor of one of the party's publications (but not from the party); and Paul Seff, a party member since 1944 and former official in the federation of Haute-Garonne, quit the party. These two examples are from the first month after the elections; see Le Monde, 21 April and 16–17 April 1978, respectively.

34 “P.C.F., une évolution historique: de la discipline à la démocratic,” (an interview with Buries, Jean, Goldring, Maurice and Quilès, Yvonne) France nouvelle, no. 1676 (26 12 1977), pp. 29–31Google Scholar.

35 L'Humanité, 28 April 1978.

36 Tucker, , “Deradicalization,” p. 350Google Scholar.

37 Althusser represents an intellectual trend which maintains that the task for revolutionary Marxists is to study the body of Marxist philosophy and frame a revolutionary effort within the context of that philosophy, rather than altering the theory to deal with changed situations. This position set Althusser against Roger Garaudy during the 1960's and kept Althusser (like most intellectuals) on the margins of the party's decision-making process. Georges Lavau, “The PCF, the State, and the Revolution: An Analysis of Party Policies, Communications, and Popular Culture,” in Blackmer, and Tarrow, , Communism in Italy and France, p. 137Google Scholar. For a more detailed discussion of Althusser's role, see Racine, Nicole, “Le Parti communiste devant les problèmes idéologiques et culturels,” in Bon, Frédéric et al. , Le Communisme en France et en Italie (Vol. I: Le Communisme en France), Cahiers de la Fondation nationale de Sciences politiques, no. 175 (Paris, 1969), pp. 157–63Google Scholar. Also Johnson, , French Communist Party vs. Students, pp. 67–70Google Scholar.

38 “Interview on Philosophy,” in Althusser, , Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, trans. Brewster, Ben (London, 1971), pp. 21–22Google Scholar. See also the review of Althusser's 1976 book, Positions (Paris), by Lacroix, Jean in Le Monde, 16–17 05 1976Google Scholar.

39 Le Monde, 25–26 April 1976.

40 Althusser, Louis, 22éme Congrès (Paris, 1977), pp. 11–12 and 39–45Google Scholar; Leicht, Anton, “Le PCF entre le stalinisme et la démocratic,” Europ, no. 2 (03, 1978), pp. 6–9Google Scholar; and Balibar's, Etienne letter in L'Humanité, 22 01 1976Google Scholar.

41 Althusser, , 22ème Congrès, pp. 57–69Google Scholar, and the fourth of Althusser's, articles in Le Monde after the elections, 28 04 1978Google Scholar.

42 Baby, Nicolas, “Le Gauchisme en crise?” Le Monde, 14 03 1978Google Scholar.

43 This “pessimistic” assessment, of course, is not based solely on the imitations of the PCF itself, but on the inherent problems of a “united front” strategy (i.e., maintaining unity in both pre- and postelection coalitions) and the vulnerability of France to international pressures even should the Left win an election. For a discussion of this, see Ross's, George review of Tiersky's French Communism in Telos, no. 24 (Summer 1975), pp. 193–203Google Scholar. Ross takes issue with Tiersky's conclusion that because of the PCF's devotion to Leninism and its commitment to the ideal of revolution, the French Communists remain “exterior” as well as “interior” to French political life. Ross sees the PCF as already “interior”; thus the party is in a questionable position to undertake a revolution, even in the long run.