The Stance of Nos Révolutions, Discussed on June 8, 2025.
Pour en être cosignataire, écrire à contact@nosrevolutions.fr.
By calling, on April 24, for the organisation of "the broadest possible left primary," Lucie Castets reopened an old debate.Some expressed their enthusiasm for a proposal that would have the dual advantage of allowing the left to unite and democratically involving citizens. Others criticised an approach geared towards affluent categories and intellectual professions; working-class people, being less available and less politically educated, would effectively find themselves excluded .
People of the Left, People of the Primaries
This latter point of view, which is the most common within the ranks of the radical left, has a part of error and a part of truth.
A part of error, because working-class people, when they get involved in political debate—during a social movement, an election, or a referendum—can devote hours to it,discussing it at every meal, consuming miles of YouTube videos and press articles to form an opinion. They then navigate the debate with a lucidity far superior to that of the dominant classes. We must not relay the vengeful discourse of the latter, according to which people are merely a bewildered flock.
And yet, there is a part of truth in this criticism of primaries, since indeed, working-class people hardly participate in this kind of event. So, why?
To understand this, one must look at the substance of the debates. A broad primary like the one in question today—all NFP parties for Castets, "from Poutou to Hollande" for Ruffin—consists of deciding between fundamentally different political orientations, hoping that all participants will eventually rally behind the winning one.However, these different political orientations reflect the interests of different classes: working-class people for the radical left, company and administration executives for the social-liberals. Neither of these two groups is willing to rally behind the other, considering that the disagreements arising from the "Loi Travail", policies restricting public freedoms, or indeed the genocide in Gaza are too serious to be relegated to the background. This is the fundamental reason for the categorical refusal, on one side, by FI, and on the other, by Place Publique.
In between, however, an intermediate mass of people who have neither the privileges of the bourgeoisie nor the difficulties of the proletariat considers that these subjects should not be obstacles to unity. The essential thing then is to promote the values they deem common to the entire left. They defend a "lowest common denominator" approach, because they are this lowest common denominator, this small category of the population who can vote indifferently for Poutou—without suffering from his anti-capitalist policies—or for Hollande—without suffering from his anti-worker policies.This is the social base of primaries, in 2025 as in 2022 and 2017. We do not despise these people, for we believe they are genuinely concerned about the rise of the Rassemblement national and that their intentions are positive. However, we believe that the approach that spontaneously comes to them is not the right one.
In fact, what attracts them to such an initiative is also the reason why working-class people will not join it: they do not believe that wages, police violence, or humanitarian disasters can be set aside, and they know the difference between Poutou—or Mélenchon—and Hollande. One only needs to mentally project oneself to election day to understand: how many trade unionists, anti-police violence activists, or public service defenders would agree to slip a "Hollande" ballot into the box, even if he were chosen by a primary?
The Left Facing the Far-Right
In fact, the demobilisation engendered by a candidacy built in this way could weaken us against the Rassemblement national, instead of strengthening us.
The rise of the RN has been, at every stage of its history, the result of the confusion—the annihilation—of the left within liberalism.This was the case for its first breakthrough in 1983-1984, following the austerity turn. It was also the case for its first accession to the second round of the presidential election in 2002, after the Jospin government broke privatisation records. And it is still the case for its lasting establishment on the podium of national elections from 2017 onwards, against the backdrop of the anti-social policies of the Hollande/Valls duo. With each betrayal, clusters of hundreds of thousands of people stopped counting on social progress and instead gambled on stripping foreign workers to get by. This is the meaning of the slogan of "national preference" which has gradually become entrenched in working-class areas of certain rural and peri-urban territories, and which blends perfectly with the ultra-authoritarian fantasies of growing fringes of the employers.
In recent years, however, the people of the left—en masse—have painstakingly managed to extract themselves from this quagmire.Little by little, they have separated from liberal organisations and have been able to pursue entirely distinct policies, at the cost of increased conflict. Those nostalgic for the previous period constantly repeat that this trajectory has only led to weakening and isolation. The assertion does not stand up to the facts. Since 2017, the left has continuously progressed in national elections—presidential, legislative, European—in terms of votes, percentages, and the number of MPs.
In fact, even looking further back, the point is debatable. Never in the history of the Fifth Republic, before December 2024, had the left had the striking power required to censure an austerity budget.This is due to the fact that in politics, strength and weakness are always relative, dependent on the strength and weakness of your opponents. Typically, in the heart of the 90s, when the liberal current was at the height of its power and even controlled several left-wing parties, the room for manoeuvre for social transformation parties and currents was extremely limited, even though they certainly had more militant strength than today.
On a strictly electoral level, what has changed is that there is no longer a party amalgamating the left-wing electorate and the liberal electorate, like the Socialist Party was from 1983 to 2017.. En 2017, les routes se sont nettement séparées (même si le processus avait commencé en 2005 et 2012) : les uns se sont tournés vers Mélenchon, les autres vers Macron. La carte électorale est donc revenue à ce qu’elle était à la fin des années 60 et au début des années 70, avant l’installation du leadership libéral sur la gauche. Lors de l’élection présidentielle de 1969, l’ensemble de la gauche cumulait 32,22%, dont 21,27% pour le principal candidat de gauche (Jacques Duclos). Lors de l’élection législative suivante, en 1973, on comptait 73 députés de gauche radicale – communistes -, et 102 députés allant de la gauche du parti socialiste à la droite du parti radical de gauche. En 2022, la gauche cumulait 31,94%, dont 21,95% pour le principal candidat de gauche (Jean-Luc Mélenchon). À l’issue des élections législatives de 2024, on compte 88 députés de gauche radicale (GDR et LFI), et 104 députés allant de la gauche des écologistes à la droite du PS.
This comeback mechanically provokes increased animosity from the party of order. In 1969 as in 2025, bewildering McCarthyist campaigns are unfolding, particularly in right-wing media.The animosity of centrist layers of the population is fuelled daily and reaches new heights. The left is, in a sense, in a more difficult situation… because it is tackling a more difficult task. It is advancing under its own banner, and not behind that of the liberals.
Beyond Primaries
The left, in reality, progresses because of the convictions it defends. Conversely, we believe that an electoral cartel that can indifferently project itself into Hollande's approach or Poutou's would lead to social narrowness and insularity.This fact is not directly linked to the nature of primaries in the absolute, but to the entire philosophy that underpins the approach. In fact, the two other proposed mechanisms—negotiation between parties and citizen convention—pose exactly the same problem. They reflect the dilettantism of the same social base subject to centrist temptations.
In general, these social groups are quite inaudible in public life. To exist, they need contexts of great political passivity, far from the presidential election, outside of any social movement or collective mobilisation. In these particular moments, when the masses are silent, they dare to step onto the stage. Then, they occupy all the space, they multiply their platforms in Libé or L’Obsthey petition, they challenge MPs or party leaders.They hope, in fact, that they will act early enough to impose a "balance of power" and eliminate overly eruptive candidacies. They no longer want the demagogues' blarney to spoil the scenario of a pacified left united in communion around the middle classes! With each presidential election, the same refrain returns: Mélenchon and his friends are finished, no one supports them anymore, my neighbour told me again this morning, etc.
It is then common for politicians to confuse these social strata with the entire people of the left. The illusion could even hold, if only they were resolute and determined, and tried to build and unite around their approach. But as soon as the great antagonistic classes—bourgeoisie, proletariat—engage in the debate and push their candidates, these intermediate categories tend to take fright, retreat, and seek refuge in the tactical vote, abandoning their spokespersons in the open field.Hamon, Jadot, and Taubira have paid the price in the past.
Even experienced activists easily fall into this kind of mirage. They forget that most people in France only truly get involved in public debate two or three times per five-year term.The rest of the time, personal life occupies all the space: children to take to sport, a colleague to replace at work, a documentary series one is carefully following on Channel 2 or a video game one absolutely wants to finish, a love story or a breakup, holiday planning, a career change.
But suddenly, for reason X or Y, one emerges from apathy. Then, millions of people simultaneously become passionate about the same subject; anger, hope, imagination invade everything. One hasn't really followed the small sterile polemics that agitated the talk shows for five years, and one doesn't intend to. One takes a stand based on the big lines: who is against racism, and who is for; who is for peace, and who is for war; who is for the rich, and who is for the poor.
Consequently, those who advocate for circumvention find themselves out of their element. Yet, they are convinced that to reach 51%, one should avoid aggressive manners and speak like a Le Monde editorial—neither for, nor against, quite the contrary. Alas, their clever periphrases, their circumlocutions that try to have it both ways, pass unnoticed. People get involved in politics; they no longer have time for idle chatter.
How, then, to reconcile this desire for gentleness with the effort of conviction that is the fundamental driving force of any political mobilisation? It's simple, it seems: the primary must be based on the programme (that of the NFP or another). If the process of change is inherent, why risk isolating oneself by raising one's voice to clarify things that are already clear?
The only problem is that programmes are not always very reliable indicators, and voters have noticed this.Without delving into the history of the last decade—Hollande, Valls and their friends—let's consider the past year: the PS, which refused to censure the Bayrou government and supported its "rearmament" policy in parliament, was indeed a signatory to the New Popular Front programme. Evidently, contracts forced under duress—here, a legislative election—are not binding.
The Path to Unity
As far as we are concerned, we believe that the unity of the left is possible and desirable. The mechanism of designation—primary, inter-party agreement, citizen convention—is, at this stage, secondary.What matters is the political orientation of such a unity. When proposing an alliance and advocating for different positions, it is essential to state how one intends to make them converge; one must not sidestep the difficulty by claiming it is secondary, but rather lay out the terms of the proposed compromise. This honest and clear exposition of points of friction is what gave credibility to the New Popular Front (alas, squandered during the summer of 2024, notably because the coalition, a victim of its more moderate elements, lacked the necessary firmness to stand up to Macron).
From our point of view, the compromise for 2027 can no longer be based on the liberal left, as the latter has shown itself incapable of governing the country in the direction of human progress (2012-2017),, de combattre la politique militariste de la France et les crimes de guerre perpétrés par ses alliés (2023-2025) et même de censurer le gouvernement Bayrou lorsqu’il a passé un budget d’austérité par voie de 49-3 (2025). Leur politique a failli et a fait énormément de mal, lorsqu’ils ont été dans la majorité comme lorsqu’ils ont été dans l’opposition. Il ne peut être question de la réessayer. Cela n’implique pas qu’il n’y a plus rien à faire avec ces partis et avec les classes qu’ils représentent : s’ils le veulent bien, ils peuvent participer à l’écriture d’un nouveau chapitre. Ce serait l’occasion pour eux de tenir les promesses qu’ils ont laissées en suspens, pour peu qu’ils soient prêts à changer de perspective.
In fact, the only possible basis for unity is the approach of the radical left, in its—at a minimum—anti-liberal, democratic, and anti-imperialist dimensions.
Evidently, France Insoumise will have to play a central role. Those who dream of circumventing it are wasting our time. Whether one likes it or not, the current it represents has been at the forefront of the left for nearly 10, if not 15, years. This is the situation we are in today, and universal suffrage has regularly confirmed it. It must be said plainly: there is no unity of the left without FI. Political constructions that disregard facts to take refuge in imagination are condemned to collapse at the first gust of wind..
The Communist Party, if it so decided, could also be essential in the arrangement, and regain the dynamic and combative role it played during the time of the Left Front. The NPA and the collectivist fringes of the ecologists would naturally find themselves there, as would socialists involved in the trade union movement.
Others will certainly be reluctant at first, but they will remain welcome and can join at a later stage.Of course, personalities involved in propaganda for the massacre in Gaza and the denigration of anti-genocide activists—accused of antisemitism or apologising for terrorism—will have to put an end to these shocking practices. Some of them have, moreover, begun to correct their positioning, notably during the Trocadéro demonstration on May 26. This is a good thing.
Presidential and Municipal Elections
For sure, there can be no question of asking one party to unilaterally rally behind another.This is not how coalitions are formed. For an alliance to work, each member must have a positive role to play, consistent with their influence, interests, and areas of expertise. The upcoming municipal elections allow precisely for articulating different levels of leadership and discussing them together.
Communists or ecologists have a deeper municipal presence than the insoumis. It would be logical for them to be at the centre of the local teams to be built for 2026. Conversely, the insoumis have shown formidable effectiveness in leading the presidential debate. The other forces could support their candidacy within the framework of a government agreement.
In both cases—municipal and presidential/legislative elections—the political line will be coherent but plural, allowing each involved force to assert its main concerns. Typically, slogans focused on Mélenchon's "New France" and Ruffin's "forgotten" complement each other far more than they oppose.
A united and coherent strategy, based on the radical left, articulating municipal elections, presidential elections, and legislative elections; this is what would allow for a gradual build-up of power for the left over the next two years, without renunciation or effacement, precisely at a time when leading figures of the right will tear each other apart over Macron's succession, and when the Bardella/Le Pen competition, along with the latter's legal difficulties, will limit the far-right's campaigning capacities.
Presidential Election and Social Movement
The credibility of our approach also requires that we consider electoral sequences by linking them with social movements.In fact, when conducted separately, both political struggle and social struggle quickly reach their limits. The summer of 2024 showed where an electoral mobilisation—even a successful one—leads without strikes and without street occupations. When one claims to have won, one must be ready to reap the fruits of victory... Yet, nothing and no one prevented Macron from forming the executive as he saw fit. Similarly, spring 2023 showed where a large social movement that does not concern itself with overthrowing power leads. The levers remained in the same hands, and in the end, the pension reform was enacted.
It is necessary to telescope the electoral pressure of the left and the pressure of struggles so that they can no longer be defeated separately.To do this, two methods are possible: to instigate a social movement during the presidential and/or legislative elections, or to instigate the presidential and/or legislative elections during a social movement. In both cases, the logic is the same. It is about relying on the collective politicisation and mobilisation of the people to crack the anti-democratic mechanisms of the Fifth Republic.
This demand for continuity between social struggles and political struggles is also, in fact, a demand for organisation.. La participation active de millions de personnes à une lutte nationale de longue haleine requiert de pénétrer la vie sociale au niveau le plus moléculaire, celui du quartier et du collectif de travail. Ce sujet est, pour la gauche d’aujourd’hui, un point de fragilité : le parti de masse de notre époque reste à inventer. Il doit reposer sur des mécanismes démocratiques permettant à l’organisation d’entraîner largement autour d’elle –dans une démarche de « campagne permanente »–, mais également d’être entraînée lorsque les classes populaires elles-même souhaitent porter le combat sur un thème particulier, comme ce fut le cas lors du mouvement des Gilets Jaunes ou des émeutes consécutives à la mort de Nahel.
As we speak, we believe that strengthening ties with the industrial working class—both French and international—is an essential issue for this organisational work.The bourgeois offensive of the last 30 years has considerably disorganised and weakened the latter, but it has shown, throughout history, its capacities for resistance to capitalism (and its capacity to erect an alternative). We do not believe that the economy can do without factories and warehouses, and consequently, we do not believe that the revolution can do without workers.
Conclusion
To summarise, our viewpoint on the situation consists of three ideas: :
- The calls for primaries currently being heard stem from good intentions, but they tackle the problem in reverse,due to a lack of a clear assessment of the relationships between classes and parties.
- For unity to be possible, it must be explicitly sealed under radical leadership, and it must articulate municipal, presidential, and legislative elections by drawing on the objective strengths and achievements of each of the parties concerned.
- This rise in power for the left must be based on systematic organisational work,aiming to bring political struggle into every place where working-class people live.
More generally, we hope that a demanding strategic debate, no longer content with mere words, avoiding sociological clichés or easy formulas, concerned with organising and engaging, can gain importance among social transformation activists. The conquest of political power is, for those who only have the sale of their labour power to live, an immensely difficult task. We wish that it be taken seriously within the ranks of the left.
Signatories
Josselin Aubry
Aurélie Biancarelli
Hugo Blossier
Rémy Boeringer
Sophie Bournot
Mathis Brière
Lucie Champenois
Emmanuel Deleplace
Rosa Drif
Juan Francisco Cohu
Manel Djadoun
Anaïs Fley
Théo Froger
Nadine Garcia
Grégory Geminel
Frédérick Genevée
Laureen Genthon
Jules Henri Gonzales
Antoine Guerreiro
Nicolas Haincourt
Marie Jay
Randy Kalubi
Noâm Korchi
Helena Laouisset
Isabelle Lorand
Colette Mô
Nuria Moraga
Basile Noël
Philippe Pellegrini
Odile Planson
Hugo Pompougnac
Mona Queyroux
Mathilde Rata
Pascal Tournois
Armeline Videcoq-Bard
Salomé Yhuel
Illustration image: "mobilisation du 18 juillet pour imposer une alternative démocratique, sociale et écologique", photograph from July 18, 2024, by Jean-Paul Romani – Photothèque du mouvement social
English (UK) 
Français