the Voice of
The Communist League of Revolutionary Workers–Internationalist
“The emancipation of the working class will only be achieved by the working class itself.”
— Karl Marx
the Voice of
The Communist League of Revolutionary Workers–Internationalist
“The emancipation of the working class will only be achieved by the working class itself.”
— Karl Marx
Sep 12, 2025
The following article was translated from an article appearing in Lutte de Classe #250, September-October 2025, the political journal of Lutte Ouvrière, the French Trotskyist organization. Although the article starts from the political situation in France, it expands to take on the global situation.
Prime Minister Bayrou’s government fell on September 8 as a result of a vote in which 364 members of France’s National Assembly, including some from the right-wing LR (Les Républicains) group who belonged to the government’s “common base” of support, refused to grant it their confidence. The vote was a new episode in the political crisis that has been ongoing since Macron’s re‑election to the Élysée (the French Presidency) in 2022. The dissolution of June 2024, with all the political maneuvering that accompanied it, aggravated this crisis by fragmenting the National Assembly into several rival blocs, none of which has a majority, and it also serves to illustrate a deeper crisis of bourgeois democracy in a period in which the capitalist system has become senile.
Bayrou had barely been ousted when Macron replaced him with Sébastien Lecornu, former Minister of the Armed Forces, a loyal Macronist from the right, with the mission of forming a government capable of passing the 2026 budget without being immediately censured. With this appointment, Macron arrogantly insists on maintaining his political line, which consists of defending the interests of the capitalist class by placing the state coffers at its disposal, by reducing the share of wealth that returns, in one form or another, to the working classes, and by facilitating the exploitation of workers in every way. It is up to Lecornu to find a way to dress up his budget in some manner to obtain the neutrality, if not the support, of the Socialist Party (PS), willing to make all manner of contortions, or of the National Rally (RN), torn between its “throw ’em out” base and its quest for respectability in the eyes of big business.
In this capitalist system in crisis, where competition is increasingly fierce, the profits of big business can only be safeguarded if the state provides aid, which comes from cutting the budgets of hospitals, the national health care system (Sécurité sociale), local governments, etc. These were the demands made by the president of the Medef (the French employers’ association) the day after the agreement concluded on July 27 between Trump and von der Leyen setting taxes on European products exported to the United States at 15%. This was the foundation of the Bayrou plan, which provided for 44 billion euros in budget cuts that would have been borne entirely by the working classes.
In the end, this policy will obviously be pursued regardless of the next government, and even regardless of the majority that might emerge from the ballot box if Macron, in the event of Lecornu’s failure, were ultimately forced to dissolve the National Assembly again. This policy would, of course, be that of the RN, which has just sent a “Letter to the entrepreneurs of France,” in which it promises them budget cuts to the tune of 100 billion euros, the elimination of hundreds of thousands of civil service jobs, and a “positive fiscal shock,” that is, new tax exemptions. But it would also be carried out should the left-wing parties be the ones to form a new government. While they claim today that they want to tax the rich a little, we know that they will grovel before them tomorrow, as they have done each time they have been in power.
All the deputies of the National Assembly, including those of the left wing LFI (France Unbowed) and the far-right RN, swear only by the national interest, that is to say, in fact, the interests of the capitalist class that dominates society. Most parties showed up to demonstrate their respectful acceptance of the bosses’ interests during the annual conference organized by the Medef on August 17 and 28. Many of these politicians had previously governed together or belonged, at one time or another, to the same party. When this was not the case, they had at least been successors to one another in power, completing the measures started by their predecessors.
When comparing France with other countries, commentators deplore the fact that the various parties are unable to form a grand coalition to jointly implement the policies demanded by the bourgeoisie. They are not prevented from doing so by their convictions, but rather by the petty short‑term calculations of each party, their rivalries in the run‑up to the 2027 presidential election or snap legislative elections. It is these calculations that have pushed them to censure Bayrou and will lead them to support, or on the contrary to hinder, Lecornu.
The bosses are once again denouncing on the one hand the “instability” and “uncertainty” harming the business climate, and on the other hand, the postponement of the reforms and implementation of the laws they have been waiting for. In their eyes, France’s political leaders, and Macron foremost, are irresponsible. This irresponsibility, or at least this inability to manage the situation as effectively as the employers would like, does not result only from Bayrou’s stubborn egocentrism or from “Macron’s psyche,” to borrow a phrase from the newspaper Le Parisien on September 8. It results, in part, from the political system that has been established in France, through crises and wars, which grants a predominant role to the president of the republic, and from the ostracization of the far right for several decades. It results, above all, from the impasse in which the parliamentary system finds itself during this period of deep economic crisis. For bourgeois democracy to function without jolts, for one new stable of politicians to smoothly replace those who have been worn out by their exercise of power, governments must provide their voters with a few reasons to feel satisfied. To get elected—and especially re‑elected—legislators must have something other than “blood and tears” to promise the working classes.
As it stands, the capitalist economy is in the same impasse that led to two world wars. Capitalists have a permanent need to find outlets for their capital. They must be able to constantly reinvest their profits to generate new ones. Those who cannot do so go bankrupt or are absorbed by larger ones. Large companies have become multinationals capable of producing far more than their original national market can absorb. They are competing in a global market that is growing much more slowly than their productive capacities. This increasingly difficult and fierce competition gives rise first to trade wars between rival countries and then to shooting wars.
The capitalist system is struggling with contradictions that are resulting in a slowdown in growth and productivity gains. This is leading to the financialization of the economy. As far as the climate and the environment are concerned, the irresponsibility of capitalists is literally akin to the principle of “after me, the flood.” It is causing increasingly serious disasters, such as the cataclysmic storms and giant fires that have struck many countries, and the pollution of the land and the oceans.
To dominate the world, gain access to raw materials, and ward off threatening competitors, cynicism and brutality prevail, as Trump illustrates daily. Trump is not mad, he is not just a megalomaniac: he is the true face of imperialism. In the jungle that is the capitalist market, whoever possesses the most capital imposes his rules. Trump, the representative of the most powerful imperialism, has taken out the big stick of protectionism to try to strengthen the hand of American capitalists in a system in crisis. His competitors, even when they rely on states that claim to be allies of the United States, have no choice but to comply.
In this context, the only solution for capitalists to maintain their profits is to increase exploitation. While the biggest among them, American or not, will be the winners of the new rules of international trade, the losers will undoubtedly be the working classes, starting with those in the United States, who are already suffering the consequences of inflation. If they remain passive, the losers will be workers around the world. Their wages will inevitably be crushed, their production rates intensified, their working hours extended, while jobs will be eliminated and retirement incomes cut. This is the obligatory program of all future governments.
It is also because they have nothing but blows to offer the working classes that governments are more and more openly reactionary. Constantly fearing a social revolt, they seek to deflect it by using racist, xenophobic or communitarian demagogy, by sowing division among the exploited, by fueling hatred of immigrants, foreigners or Muslims, by stigmatizing those who “live off government handouts.” This policy of division, within the working class, or between the working class and the crisis‑hit petty bourgeoisie, has been the bourgeoisie’s lifeline in all periods of crisis. Macron, Darmanin, and Retailleau, to name a few, use this method without restraint, without the need for far-right politicians like Le Pen, Bardella or Ciotti to occupy the seats of power.
Future governments will therefore have to be increasingly authoritarian. Trump’s policies in the United States terrorize foreigners, including legal immigrants, intimidate opponents of his politics, and accuse of terrorism those who criticize his unwavering support for Israeli crimes. As such, they provide a model for the leaders of the so‑called democracies of the West.
This authoritarian shift is linked to the evolution of the world situation toward a widespread war, which is increasingly evident, even to less politicized workers. The tensions and wars ravaging the world fuel this concern.
In the Middle East, Israel pursues its wars with ever more barbarity. After attacking Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran, Netanyahu has targeted Qatar. He launched a new offensive in northern Gaza, driving out starving residents for the umpteenth time and systematically bombing those buildings that had not been destroyed. At every step, he is supported by the United States.
In Ukraine, in order to get their share of the pie, European leaders, foremost among them Macron and Starmer, who were excluded from the negotiations between Trump and Putin, want to send troops. Drawing on Putin’s heinous actions, which include shooting civilians and sending drones into Poland, they are fueling a campaign of agitation around “the Russian threat.”
When it’s not Russia that’s presented as a threat, it’s China. Thus, the military parade organized by Xi Jinping on September 3 in Beijing was presented as proof that China is the main threat to world peace. But while Xi Jinping certainly wanted to demonstrate that his country has the means to resist pressure from American imperialism, the United States, with a military budget of one trillion dollars compared to China’s 300 billion dollars, is far more threatening.
Even though national leaders don’t yet know who they’re preparing to go to war against, they’re all increasing their military budgets. Under pressure from America, NATO countries have committed to increasing this budget to five percent of their GDP by 2035. For France, this would bring the budget to 120 billion dollars, more than double what it is today, after it has already increased by more than 50% since 2017! It is also in order to free up these funds that cuts will be made to healthcare and all the services useful to the population, regardless of the next government. On this front, Macron’s opponents, from the far-right RN to the left‑wing LFI, are standing at attention, demanding additional resources to finance deadly weapons, provided they are “made in France.”
These billions are not spent simply to enrich arms dealers, French or otherwise. Militarist campaigns are not simply a way of conditioning the population to accept sacrifices. The weekly newspaper Le Canard Enchaîné revealed on August 26 that a memo from the Ministry of Health ordered regional health agencies to implement, by March 2026, a plan to ensure hospitals can accommodate up to 500,000 war-wounded. This memo highlights that the chiefs of staff and government ministries are methodically preparing for the next war.
None of the threats to the working class—whether the successive attacks on their living and working conditions, their access to employment, housing, a decent wage or pension, affordable medical care, or, more fundamentally, the march to war—can be stopped without wrenching the leadership of society from the capitalists’ control. To accomplish this, it will not be enough to replace hated politicians with others who have never been tried or with those who promise a little more social justice.
The task of revolutionary communists is to tirelessly defend the idea that nothing will change in society if the working class does not confront the capitalist class. It is not just a matter of defending their essential needs, that is, of demands aimed at defending their living conditions, their wages, their jobs; it is a matter of challenging bourgeois ownership of the largest production and distribution companies and the banks. In the face of the crisis, the working class must become capable of taking leadership of society itself.
There is an immense divide between this program, called for by the general situation, and the current level of consciousness and politicization of the workers. This divide is the result of decades of betrayal and integration into the bourgeois state of the organizations, parties, and unions originally engendered by the workers’ movement. But there is no point in regretting it; we must set about rebuilding based on the precious political capital that remains, which we have inherited from the revolutionary experiences of the past, formulated by Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and other Marxist leaders.
We must hope that, faced with the attacks inflicted on it, the working class will react and find its way back to the class struggle. But as soon as a social mobilization emerges, the first problem that arises is that of its leadership. It is vital that workers create their own committees, their own bodies, to lead them and place themselves at the head of social revolts. The working class is indeed the only class capable of carrying out the fight to the end for the overthrow of capitalism and to establish a society without exploitation. On its path, it will have against it not only the state and all its institutions, prefects, police, justice, army ... but also all the leaders of the unions and parties who defend the social order tooth and nail.
In this regard, what happened on September 10, the day of action announced in response to the Bayrou plan, is significant. This date emerged on social media, launched by various collectives, with objectives and modes of action as varied as they were vague: blockades, boycotts, even lockdowns.... It was not planned from on high, by the unions or official parties, but was relayed from below and had a fairly wide resonance in popular circles, ranging from former participants in the yellow vest movement (“gilets jaunes”) to isolated workers or those in small businesses, far removed from unionized circles. Unsurprisingly, the union leaders began by denigrating these calls to action because they had neither started nor established control over them. Sophie Binet, general secretary of the CGT, described them as “nebulous,” while Marylise Léon of the CFDT denounced these “calls for disobedience,” while hosting Bayrou at her union’s summer conference. And while the CGT and many union organizations ultimately called for participation in this day, the union leaders’ primary response to this initiative, which had eluded them, was a call for a national strike on September 18. This was a clear statement that any call for action against Bayrou’s plan must come from them and that it must, in any case, remain under their control.
Throughout the coming period, workers will therefore have to learn to put forward their own demands, to use the action at their disposal, starting with strikes, and above all to give themselves the means to lead themselves, without relying on union leaders, local or national, nor on parties that seek to give themselves an image of an opposition in order to more effectively mislead workers, nor on any self‑proclaimed leadership whatsoever.
Revolutionary militants will have a fundamental role to play in helping combative workers to organize themselves independently of the trade unions and the parties that will do everything to take leadership of their struggles and will certainly betray them. In this period, when attacks by employers and governments will intensify, providing so many motivations for workers to rise in opposition, the question of objectives, means of action, and control over the direction of their struggles by the workers themselves will be paramount.