AUltimately, constrained by the absurd limitation of the time for parliamentary debate, the National Assembly will not have discussed Article 7, yet considered the key to pension reform. La France insoumise could in extremis leave open the possibility of a frontal debate, where, beyond the figures, would be expressed authentic choices of society. The group of “rebellious” could for that reason withdraw a sufficient number of its hundreds of amendments. He did not do so, on the grounds that a positive vote by the deputies could break the popular dynamic engaged in the street.
In itself, this fear was not absurd, in this phase of crisis where the benchmarks are blurred, where opinions are fragmented, where the extreme right threatens. But the other components of the Nupes as well as the trade unions, the very ones who are the decisive driving forces behind the impressive mobilization in progress, considered on the contrary that the discussion and the vote had to take place. It was good, according to them, that the vast majority made up of those who reject the government project knew exactly who was listening to it and who was turning their back on it.
The “rebellious” deputies did not take this into account. It is true that many of them are convinced that we have entered into “People’s Age” and that they are its expression. In this moment, what does the result of the national electoral consultations and the opinion of the “intermediary bodies” matter? Isn’t it enough that an organization is intimately imbued with what the people want? She says she relies on the doctrine of “global humanism” a you “global materialism” – executive training offered by the La Boétie Institute, an insoumise foundation. Isn’t it then founded, in particular by the authorized voice of its guide, to decide about everything, what must be thought, said and done?
It is up to her to explain, alone if necessary, when the left must come together and when it is necessary to stand out, whether to vote or obstruct, when to demonstrate, when to block. It is up to her to distribute the satisfaction and the blame. And woe to whoever, outside the organization or within it, even dares to express a doubt: he is already in the arms of the enemy, a miserable puppet in the service of the « caste ».
Gather passionately
A historian of communism and a communist myself, I have known those times when a party considered that it was by nature “the” party of the working-class core, when it boasted of its monolithism, when the recognized authority of the leader turned to cult, where the criterion of militant value was to staunchly defend the very thing of which one was not convinced. I lived from within the time of suspicion and condemnation. I was, more than necessary, called “liquidator” because I was warning the party of which I was a member against the risk of what happened… which in fact happened over time. I thought that the vagaries of the XXe century would immunize the entire left from these errors. Obviously, I was wrong.
You have 31.91% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.