Even if PCF is reformist, the MJCF appears to be more on the radical side. Youth orgs are usually more radical than their parent party. I think this is good because at least it means that some of the protest participants are getting organized. And even a flawed org is better than no org at all, because without any kind of organization a spontaneous protest movement will eventually inevitably die out and all of its energy will have been wasted.

Right now the biggest problem in not just France but in all the European countries where we have protests and clear rising discontent among the masses, is that there is no organization giving people political and ideological direction. People are fumbling around in the dark right now, releasing their frustration and anger but without a clear idea of how to go about getting real change, and they are going to burn out their current appetite for revolt very quickly if they don’t organize.

The protests are going to subside at some point and when that happens what will they have achieved? Will the bourgeois state suddenly change its policies? I would say that is unlikely. But something the protests can achieve is to drive the masses into joining socialist and communist organizations. Then next time they will be more organized, able to sustain protests for longer, and more focused and conscious in terms of their political demands.

Currently, the PCF is far from even thinking about attempting to build a revolutionary vanguard, it sees the JC more as a tool for electoral propaganda and a repositary for future party bureaucrats. Many in the JC don’t see it that way, but structurally, it’s just not built for revolution. It’s doesn’t have enough confidentiality to carry any clandestine action without endangering the lot of its members, many of whom are minors, and it relies a lot on its ability to work in an open and official manner.

The average Young Communist is further left than the average PCF member, yet still sees this party as preferable to the others (although often, but not always being more favorable to an alliance with FI, the more influencial left wing party).

There are three main tendencies in the PCF :

• The Marxist Leninists… Unfortunately, clearly in the minority. Also, not really MLs by Lemmygrad or Hexbearian standards: All at least see electoralism, if not as an end, at least as a the best available tool. Revolutionary symbols and rethorics fly around, but no one as far as I know seems to conceive an actual communist revolution as something that would really happen in France in the short or middle term. If this tendency was at the head of the party, then maybe it’d have a hint of a chance of helping to start building a vanguard. Don’t count too much on it tho.

• The pro-alliance: Not revolutionary. Also, in favour of supporting Melenchon (the only left candidate who might win) rather than presenting a PCF candidate for the presidential election, and finding agreements not to step on each-other’s feet in the other elections (municipal, legislative…). Now the thing is, the PCF did have a similar alliance with Melenchon’s previous party (Parti de Gauche), and did keep supporting him once after he formed his own party outside of that alliance. The big fallout happened during the following legislatives, when he didn’t want to bargain of which circumscription would get a PCF or LFI candidate, and instead presented LFI candidates against PCF ones (some agreements were made locally, but not at his initiative). This was seen as cutting out the PCF and trying to absorb their voter base. Since then, there have been alliances, but only when other parties were involved, since being in an alliance of just PCF and LFI seemed liked getting absorbed into LFI. Those within the PCF who support near unconditional support for the LFI are called “liquidationists” by their opponents, as they’re accused of supporting the full absorption and annihilation of the PCF (for at least a few member, this isn’t just an accusation but an explicit stance).

• the main line, represented by the current general secretary, Fabien Roussel. Somehow even less revolutionary. It is full on electionalist, trying on a local scale to hold on to the few strongholds that the PCF retains from the time when it was an influencial party, and on a national scale, it’s all about trying to make Roussel win the presidential elections. Which, clearly, isn’t happening. Program-wise, it’s a bit further left than LFI in some ways, being a bit more ambitious about how much the minimum wage should be raised and having a plan for job security that would give workers a right to a formation at any stage of their to ease their way into another job, a type of safety for when some jobs become obsolete. Another notable difference that’s not clearly on the left/right spectrum is being more pro nuclear energy. The PCF is also generally more in favour of bringing back the industry to create more industry jobs. However, on other points, the PCF mainline seems more right wings. It does not dare criticise the police as much as LFI, because “they’re also public workers”. It criticises excesses, but does not recognize the full extent of the systemic issue, and wants to fund them more, not less. In terms of rethoric, Roussel tends to sound more like a centrist or right-wing politician. he is mostly holding on to an old voter base, the ones who remember a time when the PCF was strong, so he avoids all types of rethoric that scares old people. Culturally, the party mainliners tend to shove past relations with the USSR under the carpet, the glorious past is claims is the large presence of communists in the Resistance during the Nazi occupation, the fact that a comrade named Ambroise Croisat invented French social security and generally the struggle for labour rights in the 20th century. This is also a very anti-LFI line, sometimes preferring alliances with the PS, which can hardly be called a left wing party anymore (tho like the PCF, it has conflicting tendencies). In my opinion, this line is worthless.

The pro-LFI line might well lead to the extinction of the PCF, and since there is no internal democracy in LFI, there’s no chance of influencing it from whithin. You could make a case that this would be for the best. Going against the party’s interests could be in the people’s interest if the party is worthless as it is… But I’m not fully sure the party is useless or that it wont have a role to play in the future. It is a party with an important legacy -albeit with some less glorious times ; and its dissapearance would nearly erase the name of communism from French politics. It has historic ties to organisations like and unions (Secours Populaire, CGT…), if it focused more on everything beside elections it could have more of a place in the everyday life of the working class, like it once did, and that’d increase its revolutionary potential more than any elections. It also has an internal democracy (albeit flawed) and a rule that members give the party a large part of what they receive as elected officials, which helps fund the party and discourages opportunism (to an extent). These are useful tools for a party, they just seem to not be in the right hands.

Beside, I mentioned how the ML line is more present amongst the young communists.

You see, the party almost died in the 80s/90s and there are basically no members from that times. Members are either old folks who had joined before or young ones who joined after. There’s a big generational gaps: Some 20 somethings who are in both the party and the JC, some 30 somethings who were in the JC until recently and many 70-100 year olds, very few in between. As the old ones naturally take their leave, the party is headed for a big demographic shift, and it’s not fully certain were it’s headed. We could hope the ML line triumphs, but there are two things I see happening that make me doubt: Some JC who are also in the party and start taking some responsabilities in it tend to gravitate towards the party mainline, whether it’s due to pressure, opportunism, or if it’s simply a matter of survivorship bias. On the other hand, the most radical members, and sometimes entire sections of JC tend to scission from the federation, cutting all ties with the party… Instead joining the galaxy of small French communist orgs which individually are too small to accomplish anything and collectively don’t get along and won’t cooperate.

So, where does that leave the PCF and JC ? They might die, or they might change. And as far as the party’s concerned, either would be preferable to staying how it is.

The problem is not necessarily PCF. Is there a revolutionary party in France able to absorve the new student members? Is there a party that is doing constant agitating work and taking part in demonstrations, which students recognize as a reference in the struggle? If not, this is the reason.

In Brazil we have a similar issue, which is PSOL and PT being big tent left parties, which draw out most militants. However the actual revolutionary organizations are too bureaucratic and too sectarian. There was a wave of new members for this orgs two or four years ago, but most people were just stuck forever in the application process. So, many times the excess bureaucracy simply waste all revolutionary energy of new members. The result is that these orgs remain small and insignificant.