[Seite: - 1 -]

France

The following article which was sent to us by our Special Correspondent was written at the occasion of the first French Socialist Party Conference after the Liberation.

The Future of French Socialism

I. 1940 - The Disintegration of the old Party

In June 1936 the French Socialist Party took office in the government for the first time, but even before that date it was thoroughly imbued with the bureaucratic spirit of the Third Republic, which was essentially a pseudo-democracy. Until the collapse in June 1940 the SFIO (French Socialist Party) remained in the coalition government and some of the ministers of the Vichy regime in its early stages belonged to the SFIO. 75 % of the socialist deputies voted in favour of the abdication of the authority of parliament, - for the suicide of French Democracy - and thus helped to provide the Pétain regime with a certain legal basis. The collapse of the Third Republic thus coincided with the internal collapse of French Socialism. Leon Blum wrote a book in jail at Bourassol "A l'echelle humaine" ("On the scale of Humanity") which is an accurate exposition of the reasons for the collapse of his party. "Socialism has disappeared. In the fire of events it has as it were evaporated but one can forecast with certainty that it will revive." The causes of its failure? "The common people saw how the bourgeoisie disintegrated; if they had stepped forward they could have taken the place vacated by the bourgeoisie. But they were conscious of the fact that Socialism - their natural educator - lacked patriotic passion. In June 1940 - we must admit this - patriotic passion was not represented by Socialism." But the essential cause was expressed in this passage which was quoted by Andre Ferrat[1], the delegate of the Lyons district at the Party Congress of November 10 th, 1944, "the artificial and ambiguous attitude of the Party from Munich onwards to the question of war. Neither in the one way nor the other has it taken a definite line. Its policy was one of shame-faced vacillation because the internal split within the Party forced it into impotence and almost into silence. It wanted to preserve formal unity at all costs. It would have been better had there been an open rift between the elements which advocated two incompatible political opinions in this important question. The course of events would have been the arbiter between them. The masses of the people would have rallied behind those whose perspicacity was demonstrated by the facts. The religion of unity, however, was too strong."

In this way the most prominent leader of French socialism formulated his criticism of the old party, shortly before he was deported from his jail into Germany. Andre Philip - one of the most noteworthy of those socialists who represent the socialist renaissance and the synthesis

[Seite im Original:] - 2-

between socialism and patriotic resistance - has described the French interregnum as a state in which the old ruling class had failed and the organised workers movements were incapable of taking over power. The social group which hitherto has held every keyposition must be deprived of all its power, because its failure and its moral degradation was too great. But the failure of the bourgeoisie does not of itself mean that the working class is politically and technically ripe for the assumption of power. "We enter a period of transition during which power does not belong to the representatives of the established classes with their traditions and collective discipline, but to individual personalities who come from all strata, from all social groups, but who have broken with the past and are linked together not by common traditions and habits but by their common vision of the future." (L'Arche, Algiers, 1944).

This criticism of traditional socialism - which being a self-criticism by socialists was itself a symptom of the socialist renaissance - was taken up by the young philosopher and writer Albert Camus[2], Editor of the paper "Combat", on November 10th, 1944, the day after the opening of the Congress in Paris. Camus' comment typifies the intellectual and moral "climate" of that part of the resistance movement which was attracted by socialism and feels a deep affinity to it: "What made very many of the new men hesitate to join the Socialist Party was its past. The picture it gave us was not exactly attractive. In short, we were repelled by some of its men and many of its methods." But the Socialist Party may well be the great force of to-morrow. "To achieve this it must do an enormous piece of work which can be accomplished only by perseverance and lucidity."

II. 1944. - The new SFIO at the Cross Roads

The first Congress of the Socialist Party after liberation (November 9th - 12th, 1944) was to show whether the Socialist Party was imbued with this new spirit or whether it was still the old SFIO of pro-Vichy days. France to-day is faced at all pints with the problems back to the old rut, to the bureaucratic and plutocratic pseudodemocracy or forward to a new democracy with a broader base and deeper foundations, a Fourth Republic. The Socialist Party, being the only popular party, is specially concerned with this question. To the right of the socialists there is no party with a disciplined organisation and a definite programme, there are only groups, movements and currents. The Communist Party, which is supported by workers and intellectuals, especially of the younger generation, unfortunately does not possess an intellectual and organisational structure enabling it to develop constructive self-criticism. The weaknesses of the Socialist Party must therefore also become the weaknesses of the new French Democracy. On the other hand, the moral regeneration of the SFIO will be a very important positive factor in the democratic reconstruction of France, and in the integration of France within a democratic federal union of nations. What answer can we give to the central question after the Congress of the Socialist Party?

III. The Congress as an Assembly

The Congress was the first gathering of men from all Departements, the men of the Resistance Movements inside France and the Fighting French who had worked in Algiers and London. Many well-known faces were missing - eliminated by the process of selection of the Resistance Movement; many new men had to get to know one another and to find out, more by chance than systematically, where they agreed and where they differed. The acting secretary of the Party, Daniel Mayer, who has done a fine piece of work in the reconstruction of the Party during the occupation, was to many delegates hardly known even by name. The delegates from the districts south of the Loire, with the exception of Vincent Auriol[3], were mostly strangers to the delegates of the North. Even Andre Philip, who may almost

[Seite im Original:] - 3-

be called the representative of French Socialism to the outside world, was to most of the delegates from districts north of Paris not a familiar figure, and most of them knew only that he was Minister of the Interior in Algiers. Moreover, the anti-clerical freethinkers seem to have viewed him, as a protestant Christian, with some suspicion.

Owing to lack of travelling facilities, and also to the urgency of numerous local problems, little preparatory work preceded the Congress. For that reason it was rather a conference for the exchange of speeches and information than an occasion for working out common problems. This is the explanation too, why the Rhone Federation, which had prepared special issue of the "Populaire du Rhone" and circulated to all the delegates and the Press - was able to exert so large and so good an influence upon the final resolution, the "manifesto to the French People".

The information received by the delegates at the Congress was of great importance for the following reason: Many delegates were under the impression that the Socialist Party, having collapsed in June 1940, had played no prominent part in the Resistance, but had rather followed a policy of "Attentisme". This reproach against the SFIO was often voiced by communists. After the first two speakers, Depreux[4] and Mayer, had read out the list of names - still incomplete - of leading socialists who had been murdered or deported, this reproach could no longer be accepted. The former ministers Blum and Lebas[5] had been deported and so had Susanne Buisson[6]. Dormoy[7] and Victor Basch[8] were murdered by Cagoulards. All the members of the executive of the Federation of the lower Loire were shot or deported; Pierre Brossolette[9] was tortured and committed suicide rather than confess. Even Max Hymans[10] who was one of the deputies who voted in favour of Pétain (incidentally he represented France at the International Air Conference) was responsible for the reception of the first deliveries by parachute from the Allies; this, however, did not alter the fact that he, like the other deputies who had voted for Vichy, was treated with the utmost rigour.

IV. A resurrected party or a new one?

Is it then possible to say that the Socialist Party was morally resurrected in the fires of Resistance and can simply return to legality in its new form? Although this was the opinion of the majority of the delegates, especially of those from the Seine and the North (Pas de Calais etc.), it was by no means shared by all. Gilbert Zaxas[11] from Toulouse - instrumental in the fusion of the militant group "Liberer et Federer" in his district with the Socialist Party - Andre Philip and Andre Ferrat, the latter most emphatically of all, demanded a change in the structure, composition and spirit of the Party as a precondition of its becoming the progressive Party of French Democracy. They wanted it expressly stated that socialists who were members in 1939 will not automatically be members of the new Party, but that those socialists who took an active part in the Resistance Movement should form the nucleus and cadre of this new Party and should decide upon the admittance of other members. There were still Federations which continued in the reactionary spirit of Paul Faure[12], and the expulsion of delegates who had voted in favour of Vichy was not enough to regenerate the Party unless at the same time the whole apparatus was cleansed of the old spirit. Ferrat suggested on behalf of the Rhone Federation the discarding of the name SFIO as a symbol of the break with the past. Suggestions were made to call the new Party "Parti Travailliste" (Labour Party), "Parti Socialiste Democratique et Revolutionnaire" (Democratic and Revolutionary Socialist Party) or "Parti de l'Unite Socialiste" (Party of Socialist Unity). But the great majority of the delegates favoured the old name - and not the old name alone - of the SFIO.

[Seite im Original:] - 4-

V. The Structure Question

The critics of the old Party suffered another setback with regard to their suggestion that the Federations should no longer be divided according to Departements but grouped together in regions; this would have enabled them to develop a more vigorous and independent life. Within the framework of a region a strong Department Federation could help neighbouring Federations to get on their feet again. The most striking evidence for the correctness of this demand was offered by the fact that many Socialist Federations quite spontaneously formed regional groups. About ten Departments had formed a group around Lyons, the same number around Toulouse and some around Marseille. The four Departments of Brittany had sent a common delegate, Foulon[13], who submitted a constructive financial programme and who showed great objectivity and moral integrity as president of the expulsion commission.

A regional organisation gives the Party secretaries in the provinces greater weight and authority and would also tend to equalise the membership groups; the size of the population of the departements varies widely. But the Executive in Paris and the Federations of the North objected to this reform. The central control of the party remains a prerogative of Paris. The most prominent provincial members could not even stand as candidates for the new executive, because they could not move to Paris. With its executive centred in Paris and the division of the provinces in departmental Federations - which can hardly prevail against the authority of the Seine Federation - the SFIO has retained a structure similar to that of the French State under the Third Republic.

VI. Reform of the State and the Economic Life

The discussion of home policy mainly centred on the relationship of the Party to the Government and to the Communist Party.

There are three socialist ministers in the government, Tixier[14], the Minister of the Interior, Laurent[15], the Minister of Transport, and Tanguy-Prigent[16], the Minister for Agriculture. The latter is generally regarded as one of the most progressive and capable men in the Party. The delegates were very indignant when Foulon disclosed that the Prefect of Ile et Vilaine (Rennes) did his utmost to sabotage a speech of Tanguy-Prigent's and then turned off the electric current to prevent the papers reporting the fact. It was repeatedly pointed out to the Minister of the Interior, who is responsible for the prefects, that prefects and other civil servants act as instruments of reaction. Emphasis was laid upon the necessity of a purge and reform of the state apparatus. Democratic schools for administrative officials were suggested; criticism was especially levelled at the magistrates, the inspectors of finance and the army. Cases were mentioned of officers who resumed their uniforms after four years and a half and despised and insulted working class F.F.I. officers trained by years of struggle. The important book by Andre Ferrat, "La Republique a Refaire" (The remaking of the Republic), which will appear in February 1945, examines the problem of the State apparatus in detail and will certainly stimulate socialist criticism of the Bureaucratic pseudo-democracy.

Attention was directed not only to the re-appearance in strength of the old administrative apparatus but also to the new offensive of the trusts. Badiou[17], the young and capable mayor of Toulouse read out a letter from the "Lyonnaise des Eaux"[18] insolently demanding the immediate return, with compensation, of the gas works which had been taken over by the municipal corporation.

[Seite im Original:] - 5-

A third problem regarding government activity is the financial programme. Projects of deflation and financial measures on the Belgian model were proposed.

It was not made clear whether the participation of the Socialists in the government is to depend upon the carrying out of a progressive programme at least in accordance with the minimum programme of the "Charte de la Resistance". In reality - although this was not stated - socialist participation in the government probably depends upon other developments in France, especially upon the relationship between the government and the communists.

VII. The Relationship with the Communist Party

When de Gaulle wanted to immediately disarm the Milices Patriotiques Tixier threatened to resign. The mass organisations, the civic Guard, in part the F.F.I. and the C.G.T. are largely under communist influence and their opposition to the government is therefore not supported by the Socialists. On the other hand, the connection between the Socialists and the masses is too close to allow the Socialists to take part in the suppression of such organisations as the Liberation Committees and the Purge Committees. In the event of the conflict between the government and the Communists coming to a head as in Belgium, the Socialists would probably leave the government. The Congress generally, and Daniel Mayer in particular, firmly declined to tolerate any tendency for the Socialist Party to become a channel for anti-communist tendencies. The report in the "Populaire" of November 19th quoted the following statement: "No member of the Party can belong to any anticommunist bloc whatover." (Applause). Nevertheless there is a danger that the Socialists will become a rival party to the communists. Andre Philip warned Congress against the danger of the sudden influx of bourgeois elements hoping to make of the party a counterpoise to the communist proletariat and of the policy and the attitude of the Party being influenced accordingly. It is worthy of note that the real anti-communists within the SFIO, the right wing group around Paul Faure and the left wing group around Marceau Pivert[19], have excluded themselves from the Party through their pacifism and their negative attitude towards the national resistance movement. Zyromsky[20], the leader of the pro-communist tendencies within the Party (Bataille Socialiste) is holding himself aloof too; he belongs to the Front National, a communist inspired mass organisation, while the Socialists were chiefly active in the Mouvement de Liberation National (MLN) and helped to create certain militant resistance movements such as the Franc-Tireur in the South and Liberation-Nord.

While the Socialist Party is really most interested in winning over the resistance movements of the M.L.N., an offer of unity in action and organisation had been made to the Communist Party. With both the working class parties this has by now become part of their ritual at congresses; and though the Communist Party hastened to appoint a commission for the creation of a `Comite d'Entente', every child knows that no fusion of these two fundamentally different parties will take place. Beyond the point of co-operation in concrete actions for definite purposes unity would indeed not be desirable to-day. For within the framework of such an alliance, no programme more progressive and constructive, especially as regards European and international questions, than the Communist Party at present advocates could be fought for.

VIII. Foreign Policy

The "Populaire" - which on the whole gave an objective picture of the Congress - gave insufficient prominence to Daniel Mayer's foreign policy report. Daniel Mayer definitely advocated the admission of a new democratic Germany on terms of equality to a League of Nations. S. Grumbach[21], in his

[Seite im Original:] - 6-

great speech on foreign policy, was somewhat more nationalistic. He said: "Hitler has killed certain ideas to which we were devoted. Who can speak to-day of a negotiated peace, a peace without victors and vanquished?" But he, too, was definitely against the annexations of any German territory. The Seine Federation had prepared a resolution on foreign policy which stressed the collective responsibility of the German people. But in the Commission preparing the final resolution on foreign policy the more progressive and constructive tendency prevailed, mainly owing to the influence of Andre Ferrat. He did not succeed, however, in having the demand for a European Federation incorporated in the programme. It is possible that the opposition to a European Federation voiced by Louis de Brouckere[22] and Harold Laski[23], who were present at the Congress, played a part. Had there been British support for a federal solution the French Socialists would have been much impressed. At any rate, the Socialist Party has saved its reputation as an internationalist Party. The question remains, however, whether this internationalism, which was emphasised by the presence of foreign socialists, e.g. Austrians and Hungarians, will again be a mere formula carrying no obligation, like the singing of the Internationale, or whether it will be applied in the programme of a democratic foreign policy.

IX. Programme and Reality

What will be the relation between the programme and the actions of the SFIO? This programme, in spite of certain shortcomings, offers a truly socialist solution to the most important problems of the political and economic structure of the State and in the international sphere. It is thus more progressive than the Party is in its structure and composition. Years ago a delegate at a socialist Congress offered the following criticism: "We treat the programme as a spare wheel on the car, which is to be used only when a tyre bursts". For decades the day to day policy of the socialists and communist parties of Europe has not been in accordance with their programmes but has been determined by petty and short-terms considerations. This discrepancy between programme and practical policy is the greatest danger for the future of socialism in France. That future will not be secure unless the socialists take their programme really seriously.

The emergency Congress of November 1944 undoubtedly marks a considerable progress in the life of the SFIO. It would, however, be dangerous to believe that the determination to carry out radical reforms and the democratic socialist spirit which France need have already permeated the rank and file and the leadership of the SFIO.

The Party Secretary and also other speakers stressed that the SFIO will not have a fight between organised factions within the party. This opposition to factions is sound only to a certain degree. The party was paralysed in 1938 not because there were organised factions but because incompatible political views were held inside the Party. The same process would repeat itself even if the struggle for the party apparatus were not carried on by organised factions and if the will to preserve unity at all costs would lead to the evasion of all burning questions.

The readmission into the Party of some typical bourgeois ministers like Paul Boncour[24] and Ramadier[25] gives ground for alarm lest the executive should be concerned rather to include certain personages of consular status than to attract the masses, the youth, the workers, the intellectuals, the technicians, the peasants. An influx of lawyers and professional politicians was really not the most urgent need.

The Federations of Lyons, Toulouse, Brittany, the Loiret and others raised the question whether the Socialist Party should not open its ranks to the best elements of the M.L.N., and also to those radical left-wing

[Seite im Original:] - 7-

Catholics (democrates chretiens) who are at one with the socialists in all questions except that of anti-clericalism.

Anti-clericalism in its petty sense - as distinguished from its justified claims upon the State and the educational system - was strongly represented at this Congress; even the most insignificant speaker could draw warm applause by alluding to the double game of the Church.

To bring new blood into the Party, members of the Resistance movements must be drawn in. Fusion with the best elements of the M.L.N. and the Christian movement would counteract the rigidity of the structure and the dogmatism of the party and would make it a more democratic, active and intellectually alive organisation. By its ability to attract those active fighters whose true place is within the ranks of socialism and by its ability consistently to advocate a home and foreign policy worthy of a democratic France, the Socialist Party will be able to show during the coming months whether its leadership and rank and file regard the "Manifesto to the French People" as an obligation. In saying this we are defining the tasks of every sincere socialist in the Party.

30th November, 1944.