Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Archive for the ‘European Left’ Category

Taiwan and China. Left Responses. Controversy over Campism shown in France by Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s response.

with 3 comments

Across Europe Chinese sabre-rattling against Taiwan has met with different responses on the left.

Jean-Luc Melenchon, the leader (without a Parliamentary seat) of La France insoumise, and part of the left alliance, NUPES, created controversy in France with this statement.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon calls Nancy Pelosi’s Taiwan visit an American ‘provocation’.

Le Monde (English edition) 5th of August.

Amid tensions between Taipei and Beijing, La France Insoumise (LFI) leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon called the US House Speaker’s trip to Taiwan a “provocation,” saying in a blog post published on Wednesday, August 3 that “there is only one China.”

Nancy Pelosi’s initiative, taken as part of an Asian tour, is seen by China as support for Taiwanese independence advocates and a reneging on the US pledge not to have official relations with the island.Read more Pulling the tiger’s tail: Nancy Pelosi’s dangerous Taiwan trip

In his post, Jean-Luc Mélenchon wrote that “Taiwan is a fully-fledged component of China,” using a term used by the Beijing regime but rejected by the Taipei authorities.


Chinese Embassy thanks Mélenchon

“The Chinese will solve the problem among themselves. There is no other reasonable outcome possible,” said Mr. Mélenchon, accusing the United States of wanting to “open a new front.” This is not a new position for Mr. Mélenchon, who in 2021 rejected the idea of a “cold war with China” when discussing a proposal for a resolution in the Assemblée Nationale in favor of Taiwan being included in the work of international organizations.

In the evening, the Chinese embassy in France tweeted to thank Jean-Luc Melenchon “for his consistent support for the one-China policy.”

After immediate fall-out from this statement Melenchon buckled down,

Taiwan: Jean-Luc Mélenchon defends his position despite criticism

Le Monde (translation from French editions)

The leader of La France insoumise described Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan as a “provocation” and reiterated that “there [was] only one China”, triggering strong criticism, particularly in the within the left-wing Nupes alliance.

Within the left-wing alliance Nupes, the national secretary of Europe Ecology-The Greens (EELV), Julien Bayou, had denounced Friday “a rather dated vision” and “a real cynicism in terms of geopolitics” on the part of Mr. Mélenchon, while the head of the Socialist Party (PS), Olivier Faure, judged that if “the advisability of Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan [was] debatable, the will of the Taiwanese to live in a democracy is not not” .

There were also sharp criticisms from  Raphaël Glucksmann who accused the chief of La France insoumise of being guided purely and simply by « l’antiaméricanisme ».

This is untrue. Melenchon has a long history of ambiguous statements about the Chinese Communist Party social chauvinist imperialists, hostility to Tibet’s Dalí Lama, and even saying that France had much to learn from the Chinese ‘planned’ economic model, for its state directed development).

There has been some serious unpicking of Mélenchon’s statements, notably in Libération:

Mélenchon et Taiwan: «Dire que les Chinois règleront le problème entre eux est un contre-sens»

Interview with China specialist Antoine Bondaz.

I generously translate this as saying Mélenchon’s claim that the Chinese will settle this problems between themselves is a load of bollocks.

If the leader of the French Communist Party, Fabien Roussel, has also condemned the “provocation” of the Pelosi visit some of the radical left have taken a different position on Taiwan.

Campism (France): Mélenchon’s blindness on China rekindles tensions on the left.

Campisme (France) : L’aveuglement de Mélenchon sur la Chine ravive les tensions à gauche.

August 5, 2022,by BOUGON François , DEJEAN Mathieu Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières.

….asking the question of the advisability of such a visit does not mean that one should line up behind the propaganda of the People’s Republic of China in the name of an anti-Americanism inherited from the struggles of the Cold War.

It is indeed to ignore the voice of the Taiwanese who, in their vast majority, reject the “Chinese model” of Xi – the omnipotence of the Party-State, repression at all costs and Han nationalism – , which runs counter to what Taiwanese society has become since the democratisation of the 1980s.

The radical left party Ensemble! (Not to be confused with Macron’s coalition, which stole its name), which has 4 MPs as an ally of La France insoumise in the French National Assembly, has issued this statement:

Défendre les droits du peuple taïwanais 8th of August.

Press Release.

The political and military tensions around Taiwan are the result of Beijing’s stated desire to reintegrate Taiwan, in the name of the “one China” principle, without any consideration for what the Taiwanese people want, attached as they are to their democratic freedoms.

Without even mentioning the ferocious repression of which the Uighur and Tibetan peoples are victims, we must recall the precedent of Hong Kong. The way in which its people have seen themselves brutally repressed and deprived of their democratic rights – in total disregard of the commitments made by the Chinese authorities (“one country, two systems”) – testifies to what the Chinese dictatorial regime is planning to do with regard to Taiwan.

If we can discuss the appropriateness of Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, this subject can in no way eclipse the necessary solidarity with the Taiwanese people, respect for their right to self-determination and opposition to any aggression. aimed at prohibiting them from deciding their destiny independently.

On the British left the Stop the War Coalition published this piece by Jenny Clegg a backer of “Anglo Chinese understanding”, ” interested in a “multipolar world”, “China’s unique contributions to Marxism”, and a supporter of the No Cold War campaign.


Taiwan is portrayed in the West as a semi-independent democracy threatened by China’s expansionist autocracy; China however sees the island, just one hundred miles from its shores, as kept separate by external backing, its political system permeated by US interests.

For China, it is a matter of sovereignty, reunification its core issue pursued consistently over 70-plus years so as to close the last chapter on its history of imperialist domination.

Taiwan was taken by Japan in 1895 following its defeat of China. At this time China was being divided into spheres of influence by the imperialist powers. However, after the 8 year anti-Japanese war of resistance (1937-1945) which cost some 15-20 million Chinese lives, Churchill and Roosevelt agreed, in recognition of Chinese contribution to the WW2 victory, that Taiwan would be returned to the mainland.

Even if a crisis is averted this time, the US has clearly begun serious planning for a conflict with China. Those hapless ignoramuses who pass as our political leaders are buffeted this way and that amidst the vagaries of US politics: the decoupling that should be taking place right now is between our policymakers and the US warmongers.

If anybody cared what the StWC said this might have created a media controversy.

Written by Andrew Coates

August 11, 2022 at 10:37 am

Mourir à trente ans (English subtitles): A Radical Left in 68 and Post-68 France.

leave a comment »

(Having just found the film available on YouTube…)

Mourir à trente ans by  Romain Goupil recounts his adolescence and the life of  Michel Recanati, and the tumult of 1968. Goupil grew up in the la cité Montmartre-aux-artistes (rue Ordener, 18e arrondissement de Paris. A rebel at school, Goupil became attracted to the radical left, arguing with his father, a member of the Communist Party (PCF), who ridiculed leftist “groupuscules”. He became a member of the la Jeunesse communiste révolutionnaire (JCR) where he met Recanati. During 68 his friend became a leading figure in the secondary school student movement, Les Comité d’actions lycéens (CAL). In the run up and during the May events his activism extended from his own lycée (from which he was suspended) to the streets bursting with demonstrations. The film memorably shows footage of the CAL, its strike committees at work, and the huge secondary school cortèges on the Paris marches. As a general strike told hold, in united protests they marched alongside the university students, the March 22 movement, and education unions.

Dotted with clips from the period, interviews, reading from his own unfinished writings, Michele’s documents, music of the time, we travel from the JCR to the Ligue Communiste and the Marxist culture it promoted. Inspired by ’68 the two friends became engaged in building a “real revolutionary party” in this “pre-revolutionary period”. as the Ligue began talking of creating its own ‘workers’ militia and carried out small exemplary direct action protests. Mourir à trente ans evokes the “appereil clandestin” and the “Service d’ordre” (Stewards) in its portrayal, had the insurrectional bent alleged in books such as Les Trotskistes by Christophe Nick (2002).

Many of their activities look today more like stunts than attempts at armed revolution. Following its leading figures, such as Alain Krivine, their operations often expressed solidarity with the Vietnamese fight. The two friends, with a group that included Daniel Bensaïd threw paint over the visiting South Vietnam President. It was when they confronted the far right that their street activity went further. Both Goupil and Recanati were engaged in a serious, and often physical, campaign against the far-right “des combats très violents de 1971 et 1973 contre l’extrême-droite“). The LC’s target was principally the successor of Occident, a fascist ‘national revolutionary’ group that had fought students in 1968, with iron bars and hand weapons, Ordre Nouveau.

After a big street battle against Ordre Nouveau in 1973 the Ligue communiste was dissolved. It reformed as the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire in 1974.

The film ends with the suicide of Michel Recanati in March 1978.

The film is significant, both for its direct reach, and its innovative documentary technique. It is intensely moving.

For this writer, who has lived opposite la Cité Montmartre-aux-artistes, and who spent some years in the 1970s in the UK International Marxist Group (IMG) which was strongly influenced, politically and culturally, by the LCR, and who knows at first hand this part of the French left, it resonates deeply.

Half a Life (Mourir À Trente Ans) by Romain Goupil.

Los Angeles Filmforum 2018)

Perhaps the best film about the May 1968 left-wing uprising in Paris (and its dispiriting aftermath), Romain Goupil’s autobiographical documentary draws upon his own ample you-are-there film footage, shot over 12 years as events unfolded. Goupil intercuts this old footage with newer material to pay tribute to his friend and fellow revolutionary Michel Recanati, a militant leader who went missing and eventually committed suicide. This winner of the Caméra d’Or at the 1982 Cannes Film Festival is undistributed in the U.S., so don’t miss seeing it in a DCP from France that is temporarily in North America.

Rarely seen in the United States, Romain Goupil’s documentary chronicles his and his friends’ firsthand experiences as militant, teenage Trotskyites in 1960s France during the heyday of French student movements that culminated with the events of May 1968. Michel Recanati was a part of Goupil’s activist entourage who committed suicide in 1978. Prompted by his death, Goupil crafts a vibrantly raw autobiographical essay-style film that uses found footage and a range of sources including photographs, home movies, and interviews. Drawing on Recanati’s life trajectory to structure the film, Goupil succeeds in evoking the implosion of the leftist movement in 1960s and 1970s France while also constructing a filmic meditation on the transition from adolescence to adulthood during this tumultuous historical moment.

“Romain Goupil’s Mourir a 30 ans (Half a Life) recalls the history of the youngest end of the extra-parliamentary French left in the late 60s/early 70s from a perspective that is equally personal and political. Using interviews, documentary footage, and the films Goupil made during his youth, the movie recounts Goupil’s own experiences in the political movements leading up to and following from May ’68, as well as pays tribute to his friend and comrade, Michel Recanati, whom Goupil worked alongside in politics for many years but who surprisingly committed suicide in 1978 at the age of 30. An unruly child from a middle-class leftist family, Goupil became involved in politics early in his teens (perhaps around the age of 14), joining the Trotskyite JCR (Jeunesses Communistes Revolutionnaires) after quickly becoming disillusioned with the French Communist Party’s complacency. The JCR provided Goupil an early education in Marxism-Leninism, and brought him together with other militant young students who would become long-term comrades, including Recanati. Political activism in his school led to Goupil’s suspension, and, despite student protests in response, his expulsion, but Goupil refused to become any less political while “maturing” at another school. Goupil’s father was in the film industry, so Goupil had access to a camera from an early age and obsessively filmed the events in his life or recreated them in Truffaut-esque fictional versions.

“Mourir a 30 ans draws heavily on this personal archive to tell the story of Goupil’s political coming of age, which is also a history of the JCR and the groups that flowed into and out of it. By May ’68, Goupil was merely 17, but, along with his equally young militant peers, had already accumulated years of experience of political organizing, including acting as a bodyguard for the Black Panthers when they visited Paris and sojourning in Berlin amongst the German New Left. During the events of May, Goupil and Recanati played leading roles in the Comités d’action lycées (CAL), which brought secondary students into the revolutionary movement. Using rare footage he shot, Goupil recounts the disconnect he felt at the beginning of that month as he went from street fighting one day to sitting in a classroom the next. As is the case with most films on May ’68, Goupil’s memorializing of those revolutionary days occasionally slips into nostalgia and privileges self-aggrandizement at the expense of historical insight, such as when Goupil focuses on a series of images that place himself and Recanati at the center of the events.

“In the months following May, the fight to continue the movement devolved into a power struggle amongst the different political groups, though Recanati would remain a significant leader for the younger organizations. The film documents how both young men over the next few years continued to participate in rallies and protests, as well as illegal direct actions such as bombing embassies with paint. After an organization led by Recanati violently clashed with police at an anti-fascist rally, Recanati was given a three-month prison sentence and briefly fled underground. As Goupil frames it, the political limits of the period brought out Recanati’s personal limits, the fragility lurking underneath his bold facade, which in an unknown manner transformed Recanati’s optimism about changing his life into his premature termination.” – Brian Rajski, http://retentionalfinitude.blogspot.com/2011/04/romain-goupil-mourir-30-ans-half-life.html?m=1

Romain Goupil supported Emmanuel Macron in the 2017 Presidential election,but has been quiet about the President this year.

Goupil has been prominent backing Ukraine against the Russian invasion, spending some weeks in Kiev earlier this year (Romain Goupil : « Arrêtons Poutine maintenant et définitivement. Armons les Ukrainiens ! ».)

Written by Andrew Coates

August 10, 2022 at 5:02 pm

Maoism: Reflections on Les maoïstes. La folle histoire des gardes rouges français. Christophe Bourseiller.

with 12 comments

Reflections on Les maoïstes. La folle histoire des gardes rouges français. Christophe Bourseiller. 2nd Edition. Plon. 2008

(Originally published in 2011, now with some additions and corrections).

“Soutien à contre-courant des Khmers Rouges contre l’invasion vietnamienne.” Support, against the trend, for the Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese invasion. 10 ans de Maoïsme. UCFML . 1981.

“As for us, the UCFML, I’d say that we were a centre-left organisation, in the sense always advocated by Mao, who described himself as a centrist.” Alain Badiou. 2008.

“Contradiction is present in the development of all things; it permeates the process of development of each thing from beginning to end. Mao Tse-Tung. On Contradiction. (1)

Maoists, or as admirers of the Chinese Communist Party leader called themselves, Marxist-Leninists (M-L), were an important political current on the European far-left during the late sixties and ‘seventies. So tangibly present then, and so absent today Christophe Bourseiller begins by asking if they were images in a dream. For some the end point of the movement in Britain was not a reverie but a nightmare when in 2013 ‘Comrade Bala”, Aravindan Balakrishnan, was discovered to have kept female members of his ultra-Maoisr cult, the Brixton based Workers’ Institute of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought to have kept women in sexual slavery, enforced by physical assault.

This is one aspect. It’s hard to recall that groups like the Parti du Travail de Belgique/Partij van de Arbeid van België, PTB/PVDA or the Socialistische Partij (SP) in Holland, both of which have MPs in their national Parliaments, or that some of the most conservative individuals in the German Greens, had M-L origins, and intensely admired Chinese Communism. Most of them are not keen to talk about this past. By contrast Alexis Sayle has given an instantly memorable highly amusing, if also disturbing, account which touches on his time in the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), people. In Thatcher Stole My Trousers the stand up comedian portrays Reg Birch’s efforts to put “Guerrilla Struggle and the Working Class” into practice from their Tufnell Park red base.

As a public movement Maoism, even its less personalised M-L form, is, apart from some small associations and traces in the obscurity of Alain Badiou’s metaphysics, is often said to be effectively dead or pushed to the furthest margins. Or is it? Outside of Europe historically Maoist ‘Naxallite’ groups wage real warfare in parts of India, and the Shining Path cultists of (deceased) President Gonzalo (Manuel Rubén Abimael Guzmán) have followers in the US and even a few individuals in Europe. Marxism-Leninism has been officially adopted in the last few weeks by the Welsh Underground Network, a more borders groupuscule calling for a Welsh republic. We should equally not forget the cadres of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)  who staff George Galloway’s Workers Party of Britain.

The most famous disappearing act of all was French Maoism.

Those who were engaged in the meteoric rise and fall of Gallic Marxist-Leninism have also not been silent about their experiences.

But their accounts, marked by the precious gift of hindsight, are very partial. How can one write about Maoism when one has not been a Maoist? shouted one woman to Bourseiller after a debate on France Culture after the first edition of his study in 1996. Extremely lucidly, is the reply.

Les Maoists presents their history from the standpoint of the “réalité multiple” of the period and the different groups following the Great Helmsman’s line. That is more than needed. The Maoists, and their opponents, were split into more rival ideological city-fortresses than China Miéville’s Besźel and Ul Qoma (The City and the City. 2009). Bourseiller is not afraid to open breaches in the narrative former Maoists have constructed, and to observe what many have ‘unseen’. He sheds light on what remains, for the non-Maoist left, a political enigma to this day.

French Maoism originated in the crosshatched world of French orthodox Communism, as supporters of an orthodox pro-Chinese current that broke with the Parti Communiste Français (PCF). In 1963 the 25 point letter from the Chinese Communist Party attacking the ‘revisionist’ USSR’s leaders gave heart to those, with counterparts across the world Communist movement, who hankered for a purer ‘Marxism-Leninism’ than post-Stalinist Russia offered. Non-party M-L circles began to appear.

Some stayed for a long time in parallel lines within the PCF. The process of forming new M-L parties so far resembles that in many other countries, that is, of ‘first wave’ Marxist-Leninism, such as the ancestors of the Communist Party of Britain (M-L) nostalgic for the certainties of the Comintern and the Soviet fatherland, who found an anchor in Beijing.

But Reg Birch never ran up against the PCF.  The French  Party tried with exceptional violence (that is physical attacks) to suppress any public manifestation of pro-Chinese communism. In 1967 a “véritable armée” of PCF thugs attacked a meeting at the Mutualité of the newly formed Mouvement Communiste Français (M-L). The MCFML did not crumble but remained

But the new political current’s cultural impact had been growing, helped by a degree of sympathy from less politicised Sinophiles. In the mid-6os, younger intellectuals like Robert Linhart, close to the Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser, developed M-L ideology in the Cahiers Marxiste-Leniniste. The Chinese Cultural Revolution profoundly impressed this ‘second wave’.

Their Marxism mixed Mao and Althusser, the Little Red Book and Lire le Capital. But efforts to wage factional battles inside the student Communist organisation, the UEC, ran into a brick wall. Red Guards were not welcome. The UEC excluded them. They set up new organisations, such as the Union de Jeuenesses Communistes (M-L), UJC (M-L) – 1967, that soon aimed to expand beyond the student milieu. Theoretical practice (unlike the British journal of that name) would never to be purely academic, but an arm of political struggle.

As the decade wore on the Maoists had begun to acquire a reputation as street fighters against far-right squads and as activists in the solidarity campaigns with the Vietnamese people. In 1967 the UJC (ML), decided to send its members in higher education, though not its important leading cadres, into factories, as “établis” – ‘the established’ – to serve the people. It has been remarked that this had strong overtones of Simone Weil’s 1930s effort to become a saint through immersion in factory life. Though the libertarian Weil selfless dedication was not compulsory one wonders what she would have thought of the exemptions the UJC (M-L) allowed itself

May 68 as You Had Forgotten or Never Known.

May 68 gave Maoism a qualitatively different dynamic. The UJC (ML), the 300 strong Latin Quarter parent of the most vibrant Maoist organisations that bloomed in its aftermath, at first judged the student movement “petty bourgeois”. In the following months, as their leader, Robert Linhart, underwent a sleeping cure for his nervous breakdown, this was soon forgotten. The Maoists sprang into frenzied action. They recruited (though never more than a few thousand, all groups included) and participated in the conflicts that swept across France. Post-May the Maos made their mark.

To traditional activism inside trade unions and the Party a new front, the ideological struggle, led by French Red Guards, came to the fore. They would operate autonomously, and against, the revisionist Communist Party. Total dedication to this revolt was, we read, the norm.

As the May events continued to reverberate, the MLers threw themselves into the ‘battle of Flins’ – scene of a bitter dispute at Renault. On the 7th of June hundreds of students, and MLers, joined seven thousand workers to picket. Rioting went on for 48 hours, “une véritable guéreilla urbaine”.

On the 10th of June a UJC (M-L) steward, Gilles Tautin, a secondary school student, trying to escape from the police, drowned in the Seine. The People’s War loomed on the immediate horizon. But then, as at so many times in French Maoist history, the leadership drew back. They refused the offer by enraged roughs to pillage an arms store and begin the revolution on the spot.

Worker-led violence, truly spontaneous, seemed to threaten to take hold across the country. The Maoists, with other leftists, were determined to turn their hands in the wounds of French society. They intended to turn social hurt into a people’s movement. After Flins, the Marxist-Leninist organisations, considered prime trouble-makers, were immediately banned – on the 12th of June. In the autumn some went on a “long march”, agreeably investigating the social conditions that could encourage revolt in provincial France. But they soon returned to agitate, multiplying like amoebae, or rather breeding through what Bourseiller describes as violent debates and acrimonious splits.

Faced with repression the Maoists launched what they considered to be the Resistance. Those around Beny Lévy (now using the pseudonym Victor Pierre) created the Gauche Prolétarianne of which more below. Vive le Communisme (VLC) which became in 1969, Vive La Révolution (VLR), was formed by those repelled by his authoritarian violence, and opened up to the international, principally American, New Left. Others joined the more conventional Parti Communiste Français (Marxiste-Leniniste), PCFML (the descendent of the MCFML) which continued as a clandestine group, publishing a legal façade, Humanité Rouge, with official Chinese backing. There remain some other splinters to list, but it’s better, rather than risk tiring the reader, to consult Les Maoïstes itself.

At one point – roughly from 1969 to 1973 – revolt seemed, we have heard, everywhere on the political scene. Many had a particular Maoist flavour – often underplayed by English language accounts of the time. Bands of Marxist-Leninists intervened in countless strikes, fought with Communist trade unionists, tried to storm Police Stations, supported immigrant rights, and flamboyantly initiated and defended a host of struggles of the oppressed.

The cultural conflicts that contributed to May 68, portrayed in Bertolucci’s The Dreamers (2003) were, in journals like the Cahiers du Cinéma (such as its efforts to create a ‘Revolutionary Cultural Front, 1972-3), and the sinuous Tel Quel, now refracted through the ‘Marxist-Leninist’ and ‘dialectical materialist’ lens.

Close to the Telqueliens, Italian Communist, and lecturer in France, Maria Antonietta Macciocchi, in agreement with her friend Louis Althusser, found somewhere in Mao’s writings and practice a “critique du stalinisme de gauche.” Her eulogy, De la Chine (1971) went with the current, and provoked a rupture with the PCF – to the delight of the avant-garde circle (though not to the philosopher). This “cultural revolution” on the Seine, she has said, to the incomprehension of the Chinese themselves, seized all “les idoles intellectuals – Malraux, Sartre, Sollers, Lacan, Foucault, Godard, Matta, Deleuze, Guattari”. (2)

The influence of these ‘intellectual idols’ continues. It is one of the merits of Les Maoïstes to remind us that these writers, artists and French Theorists did not spontaneously sympathise with Maoism as part of their wish to grapple with May’s youthful uprising (Malraux standing somewhat apart…). Organisations consciously attempted to draw them into their orbit. The Gauche Prolétarienne (GP), which emerged from the ruins of the UJC (ML), and was itself dissolved in June 1970, continued to operate as the ‘ex-GP’ (more below).

They played the card that the ‘youth’ had a new message, and that these figures could and should be authentic friends of the struggle. Once entrapped the Maoists treated these ‘democrats’, Bourseiller indicates, with less deference than the Stalinists did their fellow-travellers. The new compagnons de route were expected to support political campaigns directly aligned to their groups’ daily agitation – not to simply admire a new paradise from afar.

The most sordid episode in French Maoist history, the 1972 Bruay-en-Artois affair, drew in these intellectuals. Convinced that a Notary, Pierre Leroy, had murdered the 16 year old Miner’s daughter Brigitte Dewere, the ex-GP began a campaign (led by future Libération editor, Serge July) for ‘popular justice’. It verged on incitement to a lynching.

They would shout, “Il faut le faire souffrir petit à petit!” (He has to suffer slowly, little by little). Sartre and Foucault supported their Comité vérité et justice. But the former soon denounced lynching as an “idéologie réactionnaire”; the latter in a famous exchange, questioned the nature of formalised Popular Justice. Inside this Maoist movement, the ex-GP, a group rose up, including André Glucksman and Christian Jambert, to their credit, to protest at this turn. They were dismissed as “vipers”. Nobody is sure to this day who was responsible for the atrocious crime. But the nausea felt by many at the ex-GP’s campaign (even recounted second-hand) is felt again every time there is an anti-paedophile panic. (3)

The Disappearance.

Why and how, Christophe Bourseiller asks, did this all disappear with such a “brièvité de méteorite”? Maoism demanded, he noted, “une dévotion mystique, presque religieuse, et un engagement total, existential.” Ex-Maoists Guy Lardreau and Christian Jambert’s L’Ange 1976 would come to describe this as an illusion, and submission to Power (“le Lin Piao dans nos têtes”).

Many people would recognise the reality behind this mythic movement in Jean-Luc Godard’s La Chinoise (1967). It showed the personal awkwardness, shyness, and bursts of hectoring, deep feelings, and love that mark political life for young leftists. Maoism exaggerated these sentiments and took them on a political adventure. Which is where Bourseiller leads us, with Godardian accuracy, from the “pluralité des étincelles” (a shower of sparks) that it threw out, to the less than scintillating world of the politics and personalities of French Maoism.

It was here that the strategy of the French Communist party, outlined by Louis Althusser took full effect, ““Il lui suffi de se renfermer dans sa ‘forteresse ouvrière’, la CGT at le Parti, pour laisser se décomposer tout seul, malgré ses imprecations, le gauchisme étudiant, maoïst ou non.” “It was enough to withdraw to its ‘workers’ fortress’, the CGT and the Party, to let, despite its curses, student leftism, Maoist or not, decompose all by itself.

Althusser’s claim that only a traditional far-left, based on the workers’ movement, would endure, has been only been proved if one recognises that the ‘movement’ was itself transformed by the 1960s and 1970s. Formerly “extreme” campaigns on gender and sexual equality and a renovation of other Marxist currents, from Trotskyism onwards, has taken place. Althusser’s observation might also be expanded if he had admitted his own responsibility for the birth of dead-end student – academically inspired – ultra-leftism. (4)

Of the French Maos the “Mao-spontex” Gauche Prolétarienne (GP) – who considered that a new communist party would arise from spontaneous struggles, stands out. It attracted names that resonate today. Beny Lévy (who became closely involved with Sartre) André Glucksmann, (Stratégie et révolution en France 1968. which got a fawning introduction to its translation in New Left Review 1/52), Bernard Henri-Lévi, the novelist Olivier Rolin, the full list is very, very, long. The orthodox pro-Chinese in the PCMLF (Parti Communiste Marxiste-Léniniste Français) and its offshoots, with less media impact, paraded its few thousands troops up and down.

Vive la Révolution (VLR) involved the yet to-be-celebrated Mitterrandiste architect Roland Castro, and the gay rights pioneer Guy Hocquenghem (a transfer with ‘Tendency 3’ of Trotskyist Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire). They, Bourseiller remarks, were the only Maoists to practice internal democracy.

VLF crossed over to the counter-culture. They were also involved with less than savoury young marginals. The group was one of the first in France to confront gender inequality and sexual issues. They practised free love even polygamy. The female members eventually left declaring “Votre libération sexuelle n’est pas la nôtre”. The wealthy Sylvina Boisonna, VLF’s financier, joined the hermetic group around Antoinette Fouque which became the Mouvement de Libération des Femmes (MLF). Bourseiller generously gives VLF credit for raising social movement issues. The impossibly smart bookshop that the MLF set up in the Quartier Latin, decked out with original art, was a legacy of a slightly different kind.

Alain Badiou’s claims his group, the UCFML (estimated at 80 strong) stood in the middle, between the Stalinists of the PCFML and the “ultra left” “almost anarchist” actions of the GP. It is described by Bourseiller as “secte?” – we might remove the question mark. While its founders, like Badiou, came in 1969, from the scrupulously democratic Parti Socialiste Unifié, it formed ‘comités de base’ welded to a structure without internal democracy. Badiou was the only real Boss. Yet it was close to “actual political processes”, remarks the Metaphysician.

In this vein they held a meeting of the ‘international proletariat’ for immigrant workers at the luxurious Hôtel Lutetia. UCFML member Natacha Michel ‘Groupe de Foudre’ that disrupted cultural events, including Maccciocchi’s lectures (to cries of “la révisionniste à la porte!”) they didn’t approve of. One of their leading cadres, Bernard Sichère described them as torn between a “paranoïaque, intolérante” tendency and a “démocratique, anti autoritaire” one. The UCFML generally supported violence only by proxy. I have already cited their backing for Pol Pot. The UCFML also aided the Portuguese MRPP – which engaged in military attacks, supported by the extreme-right, against Portuguese democrats and Communists during the Carnation Revolution. (5)

The UCFML’s main activity was apparently organising the “international proletariat”, their term for immigrant workers.  It was largely unnoticed. Badiou’s L’Organisation Politique, a ghostly survivor from those days, continues its work, as Middlemarch’s Dorothea, humbly and patiently, if not exactly unsung by its leader or unnoted by the academic world, which has even produced a journal called Badiou Studies. Cambodians and José Manuel Barroso, the ex-Portuguese Maoist who spent time as a hard-line free-marketer of the European Commission, recall no doubt the UCFML’s other international solidarity activity as fidelity to the Event.

By contrast, from 1969 onwards, the GP and its underground branch, occupied a more visible stage. The Nouvelle Résistance Populaire (NRP) against the Bosses, the Police and the “Kollabos” of the PCF, headed by Rolin, saw the light of day. The GP was officially dissolved in May 1970.

In November 1970 the NPA botched an “arrest” of the Gaullist MP, Michel de Grailly. In 1971 they succeeded in kidnapping a Renault manager, Robert Norgette and held him in a People’s Prison before releasing him unharmed. In 1972 a Security Guard at Renault’s Boulogne plant shot the GP Pierre Overney. Everything seemed set for a prolonged ‘people’s war’. Yet in 1973, on the All Hallows Day, the ex-GP disbanded itself – definitively.

The NPA followed suit. Later its members would (endlessly) congratulate themselves on having prevented a French terrorist wave that swept Germany and Italy. They had never actually murdered anybody. Bourseiller notes that they whatever other motives they may have had for not going the whole-hog (fear, lack of conviction, a wish to save their own skins), that the armed-wing of the GP had publicly advocated killing (in 1971) and a Maoist Law of the Talion (1972).

They left texts that, today, are savoured by those who support armed struggle. That, “depuis 1974 la plupart des mouvances ‘terroristes’ d’extrême gauche revendiquent d’elles mêmes une filiation avec la GP..” If, he underlines, Action Directe, had no direct affiliation to organised Maoism, at least one of its branches was in the M-L tradition.

Meanwhile in 1976 one earthly Master died. As Les Maoïstes observes, Maoism without Mao made no sense. What was left? Only “un communisme aux contours mal defines, teinté de populisme, de tiers mondisme, de tiers-mondisme, tirallé entre des aspirations libertaires et autoritaires…” remained. A poorly defined communism with a populist, even patriotic, element indeed rumbled on for a while, under Albanian protection.

The PCFML had already shown strong nationalist inclinations, even collaborating with the Royalists of the Nouvelle Action Française (NAF) in 1975 to defend French nuclear independence and national service. Parties such as the Belgium PTB and the Dutch SP have succeed in tapping into a workerist populism, and have had some electoral impact (particularly the SP) long after the Little Red Book had become a curio.

In France the PCML was directly affected by the death of the great Helmsman: it lost is Chinese subsidy. It fared extremely badly in its campaign for the Legislative elections of 1978 (between 0, 8 and 2,0%). A last gasp of callous doctrinal anti-imperialism led it to support the Khmer Rouge – even visiting Phnom Penh in 1978, and issuing a declaration that the present line of the Cambodian Communist Party “exclut le recours à la violence”. In 1981, lacking support, it couldn’t get on the Presidential election ballot.

The PCML ended up as the miniscule Parti pour une alternative Communiste (PAC) that worked with the Fédération pour une Gauche Alternative (FGA) in the early 1980s. The Parti Communiste Révolutionnaire (PCR-ML) whose trajectory Bourseiller covers in detail, followed the same route. In 1978 they published Que Faire Aujourd’hui, which by the 1980s was interested in ‘alternative ‘(self-management) politics. The remaining activists from these parties were charming, anxious to integrate with their new autogestionnaire allies, but at least some were severely damaged.

Whys and Wherefores.

There is an abundant literature on the ‘why’ this dream ended. The effects that changing Chinese domestic and foreign policy had on French Maoism, already cited, were of obvious weight (The Great Leap Backwards, as Charles Bettelheim put it in 1978). The Balzacian thirst for power and influence on the part of those who turned from Maoism to respectability and wealth “Mao-Mai pour arriver au Rotary et aux Rolls” (Guy Hocquenghem) is another explanation. The best known ex-GP member active politically, Serge July, editor in the 1980s of Libération turned the daily paper to social democracy, not further rightwards. There was a slow-burning conflict when Maoists of a Jewish background found just how far “anti-Zionism” could do. Finally, and to give some people the honour, one should not discount a genuine revulsion at the tyranny of purified Marxism-Leninism as factual accounts of life in China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution emerged, and, in the 1970s, the Khmer Rouge genocide, in 1977 the first widely read exposure of their horrors appeared, Cambodge année zéro, by François Ponchaud.

But the defence of democracy against totalitarianism, in the writings of Bernard Henri-Lévy (BHL), André Glucksmann and their later-day admirers in Le Meillieur des Mondes was flawed. These anti-Communists, as François Aubral and Xabier Delcourt polemicised, did not only criticise Stalinism: they traced the Gulag to Marx and Engels, who were rooted in the wider left and workers’ movement, ignored history, and pushed the idea that the ordinary people, the “plèbe” were ultimately oppressed by an Idea of Scientific, Marxist, Mastery. Their abstract writings, finely written in the terms of classical rhetoric, do not rival the denunciations of totalitarian tyranny made by 1930s writers of the left such as Boris Souvarine, or the left liberal inflected critiques of Claude Lefort, with his Socialisme ou Barbarie background, in Un Homme en trop. Essai sur l’archipel du goulag de Soljénitsyne (1974). Breaking with the left the new philosophers backed anti-democratic movements, from the Nicaraguan Contras to the Islamist (though not Taliban) Afghanistan Moudjahidin. André Glucksmann voted for Nicholas Sarkozy, BHL, who considers himself on the left, was recently distinguished for his crass defence of Dominique Strauss Kahn. (6)

Perhaps then it was not just “fragilité doctrinale”, which broke up the coherent voice of Maoism. Anyone who rallied to the defence of Pol Pot, however qualified, has severe cognitive problems, with truth to begin with. But over and above this, the French organisational form of the doctrine that was incapable of democratically resolving the crises that swept over it.

Marxism-Leninism was lived in complete contradiction: between the hardness of the struggle against individualism and liberalism, and the uncontrollable choices that people in revolt make. The Nouvelle Philosophie’s rhetoric should not obscure the fact that French Maoism never had a Maître who dominated anyone for more than fragmentary moments. The political current’s central difficulty was its complete inability to sustain anything long-term and enduring. This is, one suspects was the result not only, as Bourseiller suggests, because of a reliance on media, spectacular, coups. It lay inside the structures they were wrapped up in.

China has spent years coming to accounts of the Cultural Revolution, a process which most would consider unfinished – whether one considers with Simon Leys that it was a weapon in factional battles or not. French Maoism, without the Chinese guiding thread, stood not only politically disorientated. It was faced with the fact that its call for universal stasis (in the sense of complete rebellion and subversion), was kept in line only by the worst aspects of political messianism: a fanaticism that channelled a lust for the sublime.

This characteristic, dramatic as it sounds, is by no means confined to ‘extreme’ or ‘revolutionary’ politics. Politics itself is often motivated by a search for great images of fearful strength, beyond the horizon, and an absolute willingness to take sides. Yet democracy is grounded on the acceptance of the need to dissent, not to smash opposition, or allow it only within set boundaries as “contradictions amongst the people”.

Maoists never reconciled themselves to democracy, except by abandoning Maoism, and, in most cases, Marxism. Were those that switched from Marxism Leninism to a violent anti-Communism infected by the corroded reason they brought to their new side? Are not those who continue to proclaimed fidelity to the radical impulse of Maoism, but who continue to seek an exalted future, not equally at fault? We note that Badiou remains a critic of democracy, even he did not hold back from criticising the Gilets Jaunes.

Bourseiller says that the GP was torn apart by its own paradoxes. It “se définit dès l’origine non comme un parti hiérarchisé mais comme une simple fédération de luttes autonomes, un rassemblement souple de comités théoriquement independent. Chacun s’accorde pourtant qu’il s’agit en réalité d’un group  extrêmement autoritaire, au sein duquel tous les pouvoirs sont concentrés dans les mains d’un petit groupe occulte qui n’a jamais été élu par aucun college.” (The GP defined itself, right from the beginning, not a hierarchical party, but as a simple federation of autonomous struggles, a supple grouping of theoretically independent committees. However, everyone agrees that in reality it was an extremely authoritarian group, in which all the power was concentrated in the hands of a small, hidden, group that had never been elected by any constituency.).

For a picture of how this operated the lightly fictionalised account in Olivier Rolin’s Tigre en papier (2002), which casts the GP leader as Benny Lévy  as Gédéon, is another angle to take. His style? Meeting something a comrade said that he disliked, “Tu parlais, il caressait sa barbiche, le buste légèrement penché en avant, l’air degoute, et tu pensait ton discours s’empêtrer, se tarir, se figer de peur, littéralement.” You speak, he strokes his little beard with his chest slightly pushed out, and you feel your words getting snarled up, dry up, paralysed by fear. This ‘charismatic’ leadership, with followers hanging on  every word from the young ‘Pierre Victor’ – Benny Lévy’s pseudonym, was followed by years (1974 – 1980) as Jean Paul Sartre’s Secretary – bitterly resented by, amongst others, Simone de Beauvoir and those who believe he practically wrote the public intellectual’s later anti-Communism. The GP guru ended up studying the Talmud in Israel, respecting every word of the Commandments, Sabat, Kosher kitchen, and wearing a Kippah (De Pierre Victor à Benny Lévy : une trajectoire saisissante. Philippe Lardinois. 2008)

Many Maoist groups had a strict chain of command to the point of being quasi-militaristic in shape, such as the PCFML. Yet the VLR was internally democratic. In all instances the Maoists were unable to operate except through relentless fighting over the line. Differences could not be resolved except by split or by dissolutions. Amongst this furore the Maoists raised issues that continue to haunt French politics, about its inability to deal with excluded groups, the marginalised working class, immigrants, and ethnic minorities. But hostile to the Republican universalism of the rest of the mainstream left, and the Trotskyist effort to change the workers’ movement, that is, as marginals themselves, they never took hold.

Les Maoïstes is a sparkling, that is often entertaining, history of a very hard subject. It has the effect of bringing together the pieces of a long-disassembled jigsaw puzzle. Bourseiller’s more recent writings, on other currents of the French left-of-the-left, may perhaps serve to balance a picture that focuses on the French Maoism. The intensity of small group left-wing politics was and is not unique to the Maoists, although one has to add that being apologists for regimes that practice mass murder is today also the preserve of ‘red brown’ web sites, individuals and parties, or anti-imperialist ‘campists’ of all stripes.

One would wish for at least some recognition that gender and sexual issues were taken up by other political forces, in the Trotskyist Ligue, and by liberal-minded Communists and Socialists. But that said, Les Maoïstes deserves a place not just on every Leftist Trainspotter’s shelf, but should be read by anybody interested in modern left politics.

What then can one conclude? Behind the culture of serving the people, of self-sacrifice, of fanaticism, was a dead end. Chairman Mao’s Line left it to the Party to impose a decision about what the masses should think; the people were expected to follow. When democracy became more than a matter of ‘listening to the masses’ but of taking their contradictions inside the organisation, the groups shattered. Hence VLR, the most genuinely engaged on this path, was the first to abandon its Maoism. Those, like Beny Lévy himself, and more recently, Bernard Sichère, to cite but two out of many ex-Maos, that found a safer harbour in religious certainty, have, perhaps a point: politics is not a good place to find absolute, and eternal, truth. (7)


  1. Available at UCML Documents. Roads to Renegacy. Alain Badiou. New Left Review, Second series. No 53. 2008. Page 35. On Contradiction. Mao Tse-Tung. Four Essays on Philosophy. Foreign Languages Press. Peking. 1968.
  2. May 68 and Film Culture. Sylvia Harvey. BFI. 1978. Deux Mille Ans de Bonheur. Maria Antonietta Macciocchi. Grasset. 1983.
  3. A full account is also given in The lives of Michel Foucault. David Macey. Vintage 1995. Notably pages 301 – 3. See also: Lettre ouverte à ceux qui sont passés du col Mao au Rotary. Guy Hocquenghem Albin Michel. 1986.
  4. Page 348. L’avenir dure longtemps. Louis Althusser Stock/IMEC. 1992.
  5. The European revolutionary left looked to the Portuguese Revolution as an unfolding socialist upheaval based on workers’ self-management – something the MRPP fought against tooth and claw.
  6. Contra la nouvelle philosophe. François Aubral & Xavier Delcourt. Gallimard. 1977.
  7. On the abusive use by Mao to employ authority to decide the Marxist line see: Pages 62 – 3. Ralph Miliband. Marxism and Politics. Oxford 1977. Needless to say this in complete opposition to Alain Badiou’s English Translator, argument on fanaticism in Fanaticism. On the uses of the idea. Alberto Toscano. Verso. 2010. Bernard Sichère Le Monde des Livres. 27.5.11

 An excellent framework for these events (and more details about the personalities in the student wing of French ‘Maoism’) is given in Patrick Rotman et Hervé Hamon, Génération, T.1 Les années de rêve, Paris, Le Seuil, 1987. Patrick Rotman et Hervé Hamon, Génération, T.2 Les années de poudre, Paris, Le Seuil, 198

Documents from the Gauche Prolétarienne – here.

 Documents from other French Maoist History – here.

 See Bourseiller Wikipedia (French).

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Andrew Coates

August 8, 2022 at 5:26 pm