We continue our study of the policy document proposed to CGT delegates next June. In this article, we will address only one subsection of part three, the third subsection (3-3), entitled "Thinking and Acting on an International Scale." It is of particular importance, as it illustrates what we say about the document as a whole: nothing works, everything should be thrown out.
A completely erroneous view of the imperialist stage of capitalism
The framework is provided by two paragraphs. The first, paragraph 542, is a brief summary of the analysis conducted by the CGT's national leadership concerning the economic and social situation at the imperialist stage of capitalist society, although the taboo word (imperialism) is notably absent: " Since the 1980s, the globalization of the economy, the internationalization of capital, and the pitting of workers against each other have made it possible to circumvent our social gains and generalize dumping practices with the constant blackmail of offshoring and labor costs. " This analysis desperately lacks depth and class-based reference points. It deserves at least to be much more developed. Here is what an organization concerned with conducting a class-based analysis of recent history and current events might say.
By 1945, we had reached an imperialist stage where the major capitalist powers were no longer in open rivalry, as they had been since the last quarter of the 19th century , even if contradictions between them persisted, but were grouped together in the Western imperialist bloc, with the USA as its leader. Several reasons explain this shift: the dominant imperial power was no longer European, there was a need to oversee the organization of the capitalist world through a multitude of instruments such as the UN and the WTO, and above all, the growing influence of socialism, which would eventually become the way of life for a third of the planet.
From the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, the landscape changed completely. The disappearance of the European socialist countries, the USSR, and theories about the end of history made the Western imperialist bloc the dominant force in the capitalist world. This resulted in increased forms of neocolonialism and a general dismantling of social gains in the bloc's countries. The "globalization of the economy," as the CGT (General Confederation of Labour) calls it, did not begin in 1990; it was already in place by 1918, but it extended to a part of the world that had not previously experienced it. As for the "internationalization of capital," it was already a reality at the time of the colonial conquests, when the first imperialist powers, notably Great Britain, France, and Germany, divided the world among themselves. What changed a few years after 1990 was that the "market" became saturated. A return to the era of competing imperialisms will gradually take place, with the emergence of new imperialist powers rivaling the Western bloc. The means of acquiring new market share—war—is reappearing, initially as neocolonial warfare aimed at breaking up uncooperative countries (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, etc.), and progressing to inter-imperialist proxy wars (Sudan, Congo) or now direct wars (Ukraine).
Since things aren't explained this way, it's difficult to deduce from the pseudo-analysis in paragraph 542 an understanding of the imperialist stage, its history, and its concerns. But what follows is even worse. We are treated to the erroneous and nebulous concept of a "far-right international," paragraph 543: "As a far-right international is being established, in alliance with capital, to attack all norms with a chainsaw and generalize the law of the strongest, we must strengthen our strategy on an international scale. " This pseudo-analysis is certainly stupid, but above all, it's wrong. Let's quickly recall why. First, to put Trump and Putin in the same "International" is to completely misunderstand the stark contradictions of the current stage, the rivalries between imperialist blocs; it's also to try to make people believe that ideological questions (if indeed there is an ideological link between Trump and Putin) explain the world, when in fact they are secondary. This, therefore, demonstrates a failure to understand this: the appetites of multinational corporations, their rivalries, and their struggle against the tendency of the rate of profit to fall are the source of everything, and any explanation of the world should begin there. Furthermore, this theory of an alliance between a social class, moreover a dominant one, and a supposed ideological current demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the ABCs of capitalism. The dominant class has no allies in the ideological currents scattered throughout the capitalist world; it only has tools at its disposal.
Furthermore, the reference to standards is extremely ambiguous. What are these standards, which are not defined? They can range from social welfare laws to EU standards on public opinion control. This notion of standards is used by so-called libertarians as an absolute evil, but, conversely, by the leadership of the CGT (General Confederation of Labour) as an absolute protection. Things are much more dialectical and simple. Multinationals continue their destructive practices, needing to exploit the working class more and more, yet the previous situation was far from enviable, and Capital does not rely on the absence of standards, but on the standards it has its agents adopt. The law of the strongest is intrinsic to the capitalist system; Engels wrote about it in his time. It is not new.
As for the idea of strengthening the CGT's international strategy, it will be utterly pointless if the CGT doesn't understand that its primary task is to combat its own imperialism. This is likely to be difficult when the CGT leadership's analyses don't consider France and the EU as imperialisms, but rather as "democracies."
Long live the EU, "multilateralism", the ETUC and the ITUC, these tools of Big Capital
The following chapter (paragraphs 544 to 550) is supposed to explain what this strengthening entails. We must "organize ourselves to act on multinationals." To understand the purpose of this bland chapter, it is necessary to read paragraph 546: " To overcome these difficulties, we must organize ourselves to act effectively at the multinational level, at the level where decisions are made, and seek coordinated action with trade union organizations in other countries. " And the translation to the EU level is not long in coming, starting with paragraph 551: " 80% of the law is decided in the European institutions, through directives that are supposed to be transposed into French law. Lobbyists have understood this well and have massively established themselves in Brussels, where the number of lobbyists exceeds that of European civil servants. " A little over twenty years after the 2005 referendum, the leadership of the CGT (General Confederation of Labour) has no opinion on the fact that 80% of legislation is decided within the EU. Does this raise issues of popular sovereignty? Isn't the EU the ideal tool for Capital to overcome the persistent obstacles within nation-states? These questions will not be asked. But the implicit message of the text reveals the CGT leadership's pro-EU stance, if only in the vocabulary used; it refers to "European" institutions and "European" officials instead of institutions and officials of the European Union. But above all, this issue of lobbying serves precisely to conceal the class nature of the EU and the real contradiction unfolding within its member states: the confrontation between exploiters, for whom the EU is a tool, and the exploited. If we do venture a criticism of the "European Commission," it is only to better celebrate the ETUC, paragraph 552: " Far removed from popular control, the European Commission imposes austerity and opens public services and markets to competition. Despite this, the battles we have waged with the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) have allowed us to secure some texts synonymous with progress: the minimum wage directive, the directive on pay transparency, on platform workers, on the protection of workers against the risk of exposure to asbestos, on European Works Councils…" One wonders if the so-called battles waged by the ETUC, without ever engaging in a power struggle, aren't ultimately the best example of this infamous lobbying. This celebration of a tool perfectly integrated into the EU (the ETUC) is obviously accompanied by no mention of the particularly harmful role of Von der Leyen and her clique. The ETUC, it is true, gave her a standing ovation at its last "congress." The following text reveals the CGT leadership's view of the EU as a kind of technical structure devoid of class relations: " The CGT will continue to invest in the ETUC, in order to strengthen its demands and action strategy at the European level, so as not to leave Brussels to technocrats and business lobbies. We will work to win majorities for our positions within the ETUC. " (paragraph 554). The CGT's enemies within the EU aren't even the political leaders, much less the capitalists who elect them, but rather the technocrats and lobbyists. Underlying this is the idea, hammered home by the entire French left, that the EU must be "changed." It's worth recalling once again what Lenin said in 1916: " Under capitalism, the United States of Europe is either impossible or reactionary. "
The following chapter focuses on peace and an undefined concept: "multilateralism." Paragraph 558 states: " The rise of the far right, the questioning of multilateralism, and the weakening of the UN are leading to an explosion of conflicts and military spending. The world of work knows that a war economy translates into cuts to public service budgets, social protection, and the environmental transition, as well as an erosion of rights and freedoms. " Let's pause for a moment on this notion of multilateralism. Since the document doesn't provide a definition, let's consult the Robert dictionary : " A political attitude that favors the multilateral resolution of global problems (as opposed to unilateralism). " If we understand correctly, this means that previously, international problems were resolved through cooperation between states (the famous "international community"), and now solely by the desires of the dominant imperialism and the balance of power. This so-called evolution contradicts the thinking of those who speak of a transition from a unipolar world (before) to a multipolar world under construction (now). The Revolutionary Communist Party does not share this analysis (unipolar/multipolar); for us, it represents the exacerbated contradictions of capitalism in its imperialist stage. Nevertheless, we observe that Western imperialist domination is no longer absolute, and therefore, we completely reject this supposed idea that multilateralism existed before. One could ask the Palestinians or the Sahrawis! In reality, the leadership of the CGT (General Confederation of Labour) calls the total domination of US imperialism and its Western vassals "multilateralism." Since the use of the expression, the "international community" has never referred to anything but the Western imperialist bloc. Without taking sides with the rival imperialist bloc (China-Russia), we can welcome the growing resistance to the unchallenged domination of Western imperialism since 1990.
We now come to the CGT's view of what is happening from an international perspective, beginning with the reference to the ITUC (paragraph 560): " Joint work within the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) makes it possible to defend international law, social justice, and a just and lasting peace. " First, let us recall that the ITUC is the successor to the ICFTU (International Confederation of Free Trade Unions), founded in 1949 with CIA funding by the leaders of the US trade union, the AFL, notably Irving Brown, who, at the founding congress, identified the absolute enemy as "Soviet totalitarianism." Most of the founding organizations, including Force Ouvrière in France, had just left the WFTU (World Federation of Trade Unions), created in 1945, which brought together reformist and revolutionary trade union organizations in the context of the 1945 victory. In 2006, the ICFTU merged with the World Confederation of Labour (founded in 1920 as the International Confederation of Christian Trade Unions and renamed in 1968), which brought together Christian trade unions, primarily of a class-collaborating persuasion, to form the ITUC. The CGT left the WFTU in 1995, at a time when its leaders were theorizing the existence of a single current of trade unionism and wanted to eliminate the idea that there was class-struggle trade unionism, reformist trade unionism, and class-collaborating trade unionism, and then became one of the founders of the ITUC in 2006. However, some CGT structures (Departmental Unions, Federations, and local unions) have since joined the still-existing WFTU, strengthened their position, and participate in struggles worldwide, unlike the ITUC. Yet, the existence of this international federation, the oldest of its kind, is not mentioned in the text, even though it was in the documents of the 52nd Congress , adopted in 2019, and the 53rd Congress , adopted in 2023.
The CGT and Palestine: Move along, there's nothing to see here!
As for the ITUC's claim to defend "international law, social justice, and a just and lasting peace," it's almost laughable. Let's remember that "international law" is a mythical construct; imperialist law is nothing more than that, and often the law of the dominant imperialism. It sets the rules and changes them. Moreover, this "international law" is often associated with UN resolutions. If we consider Palestine, which the expression "just and lasting peace" brings to mind, international law means the 1948 partition without consulting the inhabitants, the recognition of settlements in just under a quarter of the territory, the recognition as a state of a disarmed bantustan under Western control, and the legitimization of Trump's Peace Council. As far as "just and lasting peace" goes, we've seen better. Furthermore, the ITUC does absolutely nothing for Palestine, just like the CGT (General Confederation of Labour). It even counts among its members, without any problem, the Histadrut, a Zionist organization disguised as a trade union, created in 1920, which was one of the tools used to create the Zionist colonial state. The WFTU is leading the charge, particularly in Italy, where the USB (Union of Basic Trade Unions), affiliated with the WFTU, initiated two days of general strikes in solidarity with Palestine. To illustrate the near-total absence of the CGT (General Confederation of Labour) in the struggle for national liberation (apart from certain structures), here is paragraph 568, the only place in the text where this major issue is addressed: “ • amplify concrete solidarity campaigns for the end of the genocide of the Palestinian people, the reconstruction of Gaza, and a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, and the imposition of sanctions against the Israeli leaders responsible for the genocide. ” This is, of course, an intolerable position, especially now that workers and people around the world have fully grasped the colonialist and murderous nature of the Zionist entity, the danger it poses to humanity, and have rejected this so-called two-state solution. And that's all there is to say about Palestine!Yet, there was so much to say, for example, explaining the concept of replacement colonization, providing historical context on the arrival of European immigrants who came to steal Palestinian land, shedding light on the role of the Zionist colonial entity as an "organic extension of Western imperialism," highlighting the central role of the Palestinian Resistance, confronting the same imperialist bloc as us and defeating it. Or again, questioning why the solidarity movement is weaker in France than, for example, in Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom, or Belgium. This would have been an opportunity to revisit the colonial question and see that the return or persistence of the colonial poison is the primary explanation. It would also have been important to mention the state repression against the true supporters of the Palestinian cause, those fighting for liberation and the dismantling of the Zionist colonial state. The colonial question? State repression? But, you must be joking, none of this interests the CGT. This sentiment is shared far beyond the confederation's leadership; in this sense, the text is in tune with what the majority of union activists think. The phrases "The CGT is too political!", "Palestine is far away, and we can't do anything about it," "Let's focus on what workers in France are going through!" (which the CGT says but doesn't do), or even "You're driving us crazy with Gaza" are commonplace in the CGT. So quick to criticize unions on this or that issue while absolving itself of all responsibility, the confederation's leadership didn't see fit, on this matter, to stir things up even slightly.
In conclusion
International issues sometimes reveal where the problem lies. This section of the text is blindingly clear about the level of political understanding possessed by the current leaders of the CGT. It offers no class analysis of the capitalist system, its current stage, the workings of French imperialism, or the last eighty years in France and around the world. Instead, we find flawed, shaky, undefined concepts, all sharing one common characteristic: they are entirely devoid of any real class struggle.
There is also a void, abysmal omissions. Nothing on imperialism, not even the word! No attempt at analyzing what the European Union is! No historical perspective on international trade union confederations! And the bottomless pit of Palestine, without a shred of explanation or condemnation of the colonial question! Even less mention of the importance of the Palestinian question for us, the workers of France!
Perhaps more than the rest of the document, this subsection 3-3 is a disaster. It is a sloppy piece of work, with no intention whatsoever of getting to the heart of the matter, of seeking meaning in our world, a total refusal to use, even in words, the prism of class struggle, the Marxist point of view.
The Revolutionary Communist Party expresses its opinion but does not participate in the sovereign decisions of the CGT unions. Nevertheless, we consider this section of the text dangerous. It combines a complete lack of economic and social analysis, a failure to characterize or denounce the imperialist nature of the French bourgeois state and the supranational EU, praise for international class-collaborationist unionism, and a total disregard for the colonial question, so prevalent in the world today! As we stated in our introduction, this section of the text should be thrown in the trash. Not a single word of it can be salvaged. It makes the overall text even more unamendable!
Yet, the reactions to this text, which reveals a CGT leadership completely ignorant of international issues, having chosen to abandon the tools of class struggle analysis, and incapable of grasping the importance of the colonial question and the situation in Palestine today, are few. The harmful direction proposed by this policy document truly worries the Revolutionary Communist Party, committed to the existence of a class-struggle unionism and its international dimension. This battle must be fought, and the confederation leadership must not be given free rein. It is high time for a greater response, at least for those who do not endorse the CGT's definitive conversion to class collaboration and its complete abandonment of the concepts of imperialism and colonialism! The rank-and-file unions and their members must reclaim the union organization they need so that it can return to the fundamental principles upon which it was built: an anti-capitalist class-struggle unionism.