What Alternative to the Bourgeois World? – Alain Soral – September 8th 2007



Speech given in Villepreux Saturday September 8th 2007

Bourgeois … In the past, meaning until the end of the 70s, the word bourgeois was considered as an insult, as much by the prole as by the artist or fallen aristocrat. Today it has disappeared from the vocabulary, to the benefit of the rich, of the jet set, thus proving that money, and the values that go along with it, is no longer shameful nor suspect. Neither shameful nor suspect to the old elites of Gotha, that can rival in vulgarity the well-to-do of show-biz in Gala. Neither shameful nor suspect to the popular classes who dream of meteoric individual success themselves scratching their Lotto ticket and watching “Saga,” “Nouvelle Star.” Neither shameful nor suspect to the immigrant lumpen-proletariat who only dream of threads, custom cars, and bimbos … The old money, the poor middle classes, the new poor … among them all, everywhere, liberal ideologies have triumphed, it’s firstly what this is about, when we speak of the bourgeois …

First Part: What is the Bourgeois World?

A human community, a social class gone global with its seizure of power on Earth, and spirits that have become one with the story of liberalism. To understand the bourgeoisie, what it is, how we can recognize it and attack it, we firstly understand the liberal tale, its rise, its domination, its lies, its contradictions, its decadence.

The bourgeois-liberal world is based on two pillars, one spiritual, the other material, like every society, every human group. Knowing which is inferior to the other – what distinguishes the idealist thesis and the materialist thesis – is less important than understanding that one doesn’t go without the other, like the head and the legs … Thus these two pillars are: individualism, inaugurated and theorized by the cogito of Descartes (“I think therefore I am”), an affirmation / emancipation from the old world where community and fatum came first, which contains the seeds of all the freedom and the arrogance of modern man.

The Market, which in this world originating from the free and thinking individual man, has become this “nous” that henceforth governs relations between men-individuals in a world where God is silent.

The double advent of natural sciences’ rationality against the divine order and quantifiable individual interest as the motive of action created a world based on Reason, the individual free in rights if not in fact, and clearly defined individual interest in the bourgeois era. A free man, conscious of his rights, and seeking his well defined individual interest defines the ascendant “liberal.” The most perfect figure of the liberal ascendance in France was and remains the ironic Voltaire.

The figure of the doubly speculative honest man … Speculative in the spiritual scheme: the cogito of Descartes comes from dubito: dubito ergo sum res cogitens …. Also speculative in the scheme of business, this honest man was also an arms trafficker and a slave merchant, a liberal in the Anglo-Saxon and Thatcherite sense of the term.

Bourgeois Left and Right

Beautiful abstract and universal ideas made possible by the least beautiful material possibilities. The free thinker and the bourgeois, that where the problem lies … and it’s why “liberal” means both “open spirited man” but also “cold businessman” in our contemporary imagination, right wing man like left wing man, because rationalist liberal epistemology comes as much from “The Rights of Man” of a Rousseau as from the transgressive egoism of a Marquis de Sade. Marquis de Sade who never did anything other than push the intrinsic amoralism of liberal thought to its ultimate conclusions through literary provocation.

The Liberal Epic: Right / Left Combat

This inherent duality in liberal reason’s conception of man, behind which the man of the Market stands. The market itself considered as the sole rational social bond – so natural – between men, who suddenly become Homo economicus.

This duality together would constitute the collective epic of the bourgeoisie, according to the development of its contradictions, and determine the history of both the bourgeois left and the bourgeois right, the fight of the liberal economic right against the “human rightist” left within that little bourgeois theater called “democratic debate.”

This problematic duality would also constitute the “bourgeois sensibility,” the history of its cultural sensibility that we can qualify as “painful consciousness,” in effect painful consciousness of this contradiction perfectly expressed and realized in this new artistic category which is con-substantial to it: the story of the bourgeois novel.

Ascendance, Ideas, The Enlighteners

But if the bourgeois ethic of liberty and formal equality, founded on natural right and Reason, permitted the ascension of the bourgeoisie and its seduction over the world of ideas by the ideology of the Enlightenment, and finally its seizure of power from the Ancien Régime of fate and divine right … It was bourgeois profit, its domination by money, that increasingly made it the most powerful class, to the point of gradually being able to pass away from its humanist ethics, as the untenable exacerbation of its contradictions. A bourgeois ethic soon reduced to a rhetoric as desiccated as the Scholasticism of the Ancien Régime could be, retaining less rationalist humanism than scientism … Scientific progress had the big advantage of testifying to the superiority of the bourgeois spirit by concrete proof of its domination over Nature, but above all by constituting – via technological progress – one of the keys of the turnover and growth of profit. Thus, progressively, the social class of “creative doubt” and legal equality became the class of technical expansion driven by the lure of profit. The valorization of Capital – which is another name for the Market – and its corollary, the democracy of the Market, became the new religion of the philistines who, after two full centuries of full power, end up lamenting the old order and the nobility of the Ancien Régime! But this bourgeois epic, though triumphant, did not go smoothly, these clashes were only the proof, and moreover even the incarnation of its moral and practical contradictions.

The Proletariat, Proof of the Bourgeois Lie

But if the bourgeois class overtook the aristocracy of the Ancien Régime, it also created the proletariat and its working misery, History’s proof and the concrete reality that, behind the entrepreneur, the creator of wealth, jobs, and progress by the capitalist valorization of technology, stands the speculator, the creator of exploitation and inequalities … The history of the struggle – by its victims – against this violence likewise constitutes the history of the workers’ movement. Hence Marxism … Material and moral misery of the working class in flagrant contradiction with the promises of the Enlightenment and its economic ideology of the “invisible hand” – supposed to bring collective well-being through individual selfishness, which is, don’t forget, at the origin of the Marxist critique as a communist project, an ideology of combat critiquing in turn the dominant class, like the ascendant bourgeoisie had done with the nobility, reformist left, radical left … the ideology refusing the lie of formal egalitarianism as divine fate whose strategy itself was double: either the syndicalism of compromise, or revolutionary syndicalism. On one hand a scientist, positivist left, trying to surpass the bourgeoisie but retaining the achievements. On the other a more romantic, more radical left convinced that the ethics and epistemology are one, and in order to escape one, we must also question the other… A radically anti-bourgeois left, opposed to social-democratic compromise, for which the problem is limited to the elevation of purchasing power, which attempted, without ever achieving it, to surpass the bourgeois-liberal era, both in the epistemological scheme as well as the ethical, through the ideology of the “new man” which will lead to the strongest communism, resorting in part to the values of the old world, like the valorization of the family with Proudhon, the ascetic Greco-Roman heroism dear to Sorel, even if it meant making tactical alliances with anti-bourgeois forces coming from the Ancien Régime and the ideas of the right …

Other Attempted Alternatives to the Bourgeois World

The Marxist-Leninist epic, the most important in its duration and ambition: creation of a new man and a classless society, should not conceal that there were other attempts to escape liberal-bourgeois domination, its purely capitalist logic, which, after the failure of Sovietism and the triumph of the social-democratic left, only means the satisfaction of the consumer by constant augmentation of purchasing power permitted by growth …

Idealization of the Past, Exoticism…

Romanticism was the individual, poetic flight into the mythologized past through the idealization of the Middle Ages. An equally individual flight, not in time but in space, through exoticism, consisted of fleeing the Western bourgeois world in order to go live in other societies, often more traditional, caste society in India, tribal society in Africa … An approach of breaking [with bourgeois society] through escape that was at the origin, don’t forget, of the hippie movement. Even if this attempt was finally transformed by the market in turn.

Fascism, Nazism …

Both forms of idealization of the past must not be confused with the mixed, half-reactionary, half-futurist experiences of Fascism and Nazism. Social and political experiences that sought to retain bourgeois technology but in the service of an ethic drawn from the pre-bourgeois period, to the antitheses of the Enlightenment … The Nazi, Fascist attempt mixed technological rationalism and ethical irrationalism, which also failed. And the left, to hold onto its moral leadership, often pretends to confuse them with these very subtle constructions of the spirit that were the “troisième voie” ideologies [Translator’s Note: I kept troisième voie in the original as “third way” in Anglophone countries refers left-liberal policies popularized by Bill Clinton or Tony Blair]. These projects of the conservative revolution that seriously pose the question of progressive limits to the ideology of progress in Russia, Germany, and France.

Troisième Voie: Cercle Proudhon

An attempt at the troisième voie was realized in the margins of Cercle Proudhon in France, where a dialogue between nationalist monarchists and ant-reformist syndicalists took place, where men of good will, joined together beyond their origins in the same values of nobility of heart, honor, combat, and love of country, attempted to form an improbable anti-bourgeois sacred union. A sacred union of good willed men to which the system responded with a flag waving sacred union against the Germans.

Germans Yesterday, Arabs today…

As in the past, today the same system tries to prevent the sacred union of the victims of the Market: small businessmen, artisans, employees, proletarians of all origins, by a sacred union against the Arabs. Hate for these North Africans that these bourgeois in power have brought to our land in massive numbers themselves.

The Trap of the Clash of Civilization…

Despite the failures of past cross-front attempts, I think that it’s still the responsibility of this “troisième voie,” this broad and subversive sacred union, vilified as much by the liberal right as the Trotskyite left, at the polar opposite of today’s theory of “the clash of civilizations”, to find for itself both the salvation of France and an alternative to the bourgeois world. An alternative to this bourgeois world today fully embodied by the American imperium, its tribal [translator’s note: in the sense of identity politics, communautarisme, in French] and un-egalitarian values behind which globalist financial capitalism’s desire for omnipotence hides, the destroyer of spirituality, cultures, differences in identity. A generalized essentially Judeo-Anglo-Saxon merchant spirit far from our Hellenic-Christian, Celtic, Gallic-Roman values, and our Euro-Mediterranean destiny.

On Merchant Totalitarianism

After the failure, often in blood and fire, of all regimes that opposed it, we must very well admit that the democracy of the Market – where democracy is in fact only the means of the Market – has only scored points and extended itself since the 80s. It has extended from where it was born, in Western Europe, to all domains of life, including those of the spirit, by the intimate commercialization of the body, of culture, of medicine, and even religion, itself also reduced to the liberal law of Human Rights, far from any transcendence. Market democracy that only scores points and geographically extends itself: to India, to China – only Africa escapes it through misery. And which reveals itself to be, in fact, the only true totalitarianism, contrary to the naivete of Hannah Arendt.

Part Two: What Is To Be Done?

Then what is to be done? Without returning to past experiences, we try to see, today, here, through reality and the present forces, what are the possible alternatives to the bourgeois world, to this market heading towards merchant totalitarianism that never stops mutating in order to reinforce itself and survive.

From Moralism to Pornography

Pushed ahead by the law of profit, forced to find new markets, the bourgeoisie, in order to remain master of the game, doesn’t cease to change, changing until it denies that values that permitted it to impose itself. Entrepreneurial and parsimonious in the take-off period, it functions today, on the contrary, as the polar opposite of the bourgeois moralism of the 19th century, demonstrating the first principle, the ultimate principle of the bourgeois world, for which it is capable of sacrificing all the others, holy profit.

From Libertarian Liberalism to Security Liberalism

A liberalism that was puritan became libertarian, after and thanks to Mai 68, which then evolved and mutated since the election of Sarkozy into security liberalism. Security liberalism, namely a liberal regime for the globalist bourgeoisie and everyone who favors the weakening of the Nation, but a security regime, not for delinquents or illegal immigrants that pose problems for the people, but for the workers and the middle classes, who might want to revolt against the liberal elite. A liberal security regime that we can also define, far from being out of order, as a libertarian liberalism which, feeling outdated, pretends to solve the problems that it itself created and continues to aggravate by two or three gimmick laws which always ultimately penalize the petty bourgeois and the lower class whites. A security regime towards the working people, without ever touching, in reality, on the delinquency of lumpen-proletariat or elite predators. A liberal security society that we can also qualify as the “society of policed consumption,” both permissive for the half wit consumer and repressive for the productive citizen, on the American model.

The Anglo-Saxon World … Against Europe and France

This totalitarianism that we must resist, despite the disproportion of the present forces, firstly comes to us, I repeat, from the Anglo-Saxon world. Today embodied by the American empire, as it was by the British empire in the last century, this power, essentially Judeo-Protestant, un-egalitarian, and Thalassocratic, always demonstrated hostility towards Catholic and Christian France, towards its Euro-Mediterranean destiny, and always offered it, in partnership, only a relation of subjection. A submission that is unfortunately often accomplished with the complicity of the French elites, whether it was Philippe Égalité during the French Revolution, Pascal Lamy through the European Community, and of course, a certain President Sarkozy today.

The Mystic Ultra-Liberalism of the Neo-Conservatives

A brutal liberalism, which turned its back to the morality of the Enlightenment, and which, no longer capable of justifying its domineering and militarist abuses through Reason, today finds refuge in mysticism, the God of the chosen in the Old Testament. A mystic ultra-liberalism that tries, since September 11th, to lead us into a pseudo “conflict of civilizations” which attempts, especially for us, to oppose Europe in favor of a West that is only the false name of Anglo-Saxon American domination, in order to prevent a Europe of peoples and nations that is in our interest.

To Escape the Anglo-Saxon Domination, as the Economic, Cultural, and Geopolitical Model By the Nation of 1789

This recent offensive of the capitalist Anglo-Saxon empire occurs today, outside this mystical-liberal ideology of the neo-conservatives, through liberal globalization. A global hegemony of the Market, and of those who control it, which necessarily happens through the destruction of nations and notably of the French nation. A French nation systematically likened to the flag waving and warlike period of Barrès in order to actually liquidate this progressive, egalitarian, secular, and assimilationist French model, which protects our sovereignty, freedom of conscience, and the social benefits of the people. A nation that the liberal right – in the name of the fight against archaism, shoulder to shoulder with the Trotskyite left – in the name of the fight against nationalism, tries to liquidate today. A smooth collaboration that doubtlessly explains position of the little postman of Neuilly [Translator’s note: Referring here to Olivier Besancenot, extreme left politician and Neuilly-sur-Seine, a wealthy suburb of Paris] close to the media and native liberal decision makers also from Neuilly themselves!

The Defense of the French Nation…

That’s why, in order to resist this imperial subjection and its mystical-merchant totalitarianism, we must, in the first place, preserve the nation. To defend, in the face of criticism from the right as well as the left, not an obsolete and vengeful nationalism, but a new nationalism, protective of the social benefits coming from the National Council of the Resistance (CNR) [Translator’s Note: The body representing the French Resistance in World War 2 that adopted a strongly socialist program], protective of our industry, of our jobs, and our political independence. An alter-nationalism capable of considering a healthy cooperation between nations and peoples. A French nationalism, assimilationist but not homogenizing, based on a strong state capable of telling the priorities in economic matters in order to protect our industry, base salaries, small and medium sized enterprises. A strong state also equipped with a strategic vision conforming to our national interests. Interests that are evidently not subject to an Anglo-Saxon empire, which we have always mistrusted in the scheme of values, and that has always played against us in order to weaken our radiance: whether in the time of perfidious Albion in Canada and India, or more recently, with the United States, when we recognized the perverse game they played in Indochina, in Algeria.

A Sacred Union of Non-Aligned: Chavez, Putin, Nasrallah…

In brief, defend a social and non-aligned France. In order to do this, work in partnership with all the regimes that resist the “New World Order,” from Chavez’s Venezuela to Putin’s Russia. Without forgetting the prestige and the place that is still ours in the Mediterranean, where they still speak French and where they respect France’s past – besides its government today – in the Maghreb, in Lebanon. A sacred union of all societies that place themselves on the side of a certain heroism, of a certain poetry of existence in relation to the times, to utility, to calculation. The Slavic world, the Arab world, which are not unlike, for us, the vision of our Catholicism of the Middle Ages or the socialism romanticized by both Sorel and Proudhon.

Reactionaries and Progressives Against the Liberals

Considering the failure of Soviet socialism rejected by the peoples, and social-democratic reformism, entirely submissive to the diktat of capital, I would say, to conclude, that the single possible alternative to the bourgeois world can only occur through the sacred union of reactionaries and progressives. A union of reactionaries, whether monarchists, Catholics, Hellenists, Muslims, but all attached to a certain classical order, with the progressives, all enemies of the bourgeois world, whether they come from the PCF of Marchais, today’s Worker’s Party, the Serbian resistance, or Venezuelan Chavismo. A union of reactionaries who are often right and progressives who have often been screwed over, against the liberals who dominate the world today and who have always divided in order to rule. Against this empire engaged headlong in the destruction of our human societies and nature. Against this world singularly devoted to the cult of Mammon and increasingly causing problems of overproduction, pollution, inequalities, which lead to catastrophe. What project, what hope?

What Project, What Hope?

Of course, not the great day of revolution tomorrow morning. But, by waiting for a more favorable relation of forces, not bearing the brunt of this globalist and merchant dictatorship too painfully, by bringing us together in solidarity. Without going to the camp of the saints, we organize in networks, continue to produce necessary and relevant critiques of a world based on permanent change. Elaborate a doctrine of struggle and resistance without falling into scholasticism, sterile nostalgia, in order to escape, at least conscientiously and personally, the system that reduces us to precariousness, solitude, depression, when it does not master our minds. In brief, participate in a collective project, define a hope, try to be lively and happy despite everything.

That’s why we’re gathered here!

Source: http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Quelle-alternative-au-monde-bourgeois-2980.html


The Misery of Deconstruction: “French Theorists” Deleuze, Foucault, Derrida in the service of American nihilo-globalism – Yannick Jaffré – Katehon -January 24th, 2016


, , , , ,

If the United States were the social laboratory of post-modernism, the Europeans, the French in the vanguard, were the theoreticians. As is often the case, Americans do first, think second, and, philosophically almost never by themselves. Thus the dissolution of the patriarchy, economic – juridical individualism, the reign of consumerism, and moral relativism were experimented with in the United States with more spontaneity and radicalism than in Europe. But the post-modern wave owes its concepts to the work of French philosophers. Without American hegemony combining material power and social imitation, hard and soft power, the anti-world of the last forty years would surely have been impossible; but without the elaborations, or lucubration, conducted in Europe by certain thinkers, it would have not exercised the same intellectual seduction.

On both sides of the Atlantic, however, this hegemony was never complete. History has no end, and no era is perfectly synchronous, and all domination finds its counterweight. Against post-modern nihilism, the Katehon did well – By the inertia of cultural traditions and family structures, through a patriotism impregnated with religiosity and a populism that just bore Trump to power in America, by a movement of reaction against the human rights “moralism” which must still find its political translation in Europe. I am one of those who thinks that the nihilo-globalist configuration is dead, on the spiritual level as on the material one. But the corpse continues its destruction, like a zombie. So we must still dispose of the remains.

On the other hand, it is useless to enter into the subtitles, altogether quite optional, of deconstructionist philosophy. The internal diversity of its currents, really, is not essential. All its variants are joined together on the same front line by their common targets: historical rootedness, philosophical substantiality, moral decency, and in the strictly political scheme, nations in their identity and states in their sovereignty. In all, deconstruction intertwines both principal 68er ideologies: post-Marxism and libertarianism, which have quickly surpassed their initial antagonism. The first can be represented by Toni Negri whose “global multitudes” will succeed national classes, whose first passion, more than the anti-capitalist struggle, is to destroy “this shit of the national state” (sic). As for the other current generalized by Mai 68, libertarian and “other-idolizing”, cosmopolitan and “self-phobic”, it brought about the immigrationist “moral left”. It’s what I address here through its gurus Deleuze, Foucault and Derrida.

The Americans, who offered them seat after seat, group them under the label “French Theory” with a few others. This favor speaks on their behalf. If great artworks reach a place in eternity, major philosophies actually remain, for the most part, children of their time. It is not only permitted, but necessary to appreciate them them in the context of their Fatherland. This “geo-localization” even becomes indispensable when a philosopher pretends to fight against what dominates his epoch. In this respect we could be amused by the intellectual popularity that the deconstructionists enjoy in the United States among the so-called liberals: occupying the left wing of the democratic party, progressive in moral matters, leaving the pillars of economic liberalism intact, they are, in other words, libertarian – liberals. Major actors of post-modern capitalism in its ideological superstructure, and beneficiaries of its economic infrastructure, have made the French deconstructionists their erudite servants – similar to the Greek slaves in antiquity who would chide decadent Roman youth. With the difference that they would maintain the foundations of European history that the deconstructionists want to destroy. Speaking of the “70s”, these philosophers were the post-modern “servants of capitalism.”

Read from Columbia to Berkeley, thus Deleuze, Foucault and Derrida are the most famous figures of French Theory. I will briefly outline the common ground of their thought. Having thrown around Heidegger’s opportunistic sentence that the biography of thinkers counts for nothing, I will also say a few words about their personal political journeys

Deleuze forges powerful, Nietzschean concepts animated by the forces of art and life. A naturalist, he believed in following the growths of political “biotope.” Thus he proposed, in the ABC-book that helped to popularize his thought a great deal, the notion of “revolutionary becoming.” A situation that comes to this unsustainable point that ends in an explosion of liberty which uproots the “trees” – metaphors for all oppressive orders. On this ground the swarming “rhizomes” then return, which designate unpredictable libertine freedom in Deleuzian botany. As liberty would sprout there, in the undisciplined, anarchic, “flux”, between “branches”, before freedom-killing trees quickly strike back back and fatally take root. Deleuze calmly states that revolutions “go bad” without truly saying why, to him oppression seems to need “to happen” with liberty in a sort of cosmic balance.

Evidently we cannot imagine an eventual positive role for the state with him, not in the value of substance, of what endures in the Stoic sense, as we are caught up in “desiring” fluxes. Flux whose consumer – destructor potential occupies the blind spit of this thought. And it’s without flagrant injustice that the Deleuzian vocabulary of “nomadism,” “deterritorialization”, and thus “flux” finds itself in the language of country-less financial capitalism today. And it’s also unsurprising that it serves to dissolve the identities of peoples with immigration, and with it, their political sovereignty. Deleuze, resistant to the rigors of Hegelian dialectic, despises stopping points, of rest and constraint, in other words the institutions indispensable to collective liberty. Thus he dismisses the necessary negative political moments – coercion, institution, authority – as Spinozaist “sad passions,” Nietzschean “weak forces,” in other words the pathologies of submission. And his thought offers the viewpoint of a sort of artistic anarcho-naturalism, which by constitution, has very poor historical support. Not understanding European history through its great cultural works, he supremely ignores it as civilizational destiny. For those who make this destiny their fight, Deleuze only offers booby traps.

As for this personal journey, we can recognize a certain fidelity and Stoic probity there. It certainly cultivated the fetishism of the marginal in the joyous (?) disorder of the university of Vincennes, then evaded the embarrassing questions on the social and existential consequences of leftism, refusing, in short, to look the black sun of May 68 in the face. But after having embraced the vitalist streak of 68, without ever looking back, he never personally chased after the selfish or material benefits of the avant-garde.

With Foucault we sometimes read sparkling theoretical prose, as in the unforgettable openings of his two masterworks, “Discipline and Punish,” and “The Order of Things.” We also learn much there as a body of facts – historical, scientific, and aesthetic – giving each essential proposition provisional support. But despite such a positivist will, the Foucauldian concept of power slips between the fingers like the water of Thales: the universal element filling everything, at this point it would be spread through institutions, discourses, and daily practices, it becomes unthinkable. With this logical consequence we can only escape omnipresent oppressive power by traveling along extraordinary lines of flight. As Deleuze fell into the idolatry of the marginal cultivated by his epoch, thus Foucault reserved the experience of liberty to the insane, criminals, parricides, transsexuals. Since the state (and all institutions that comes from it) was in effect only a pure agent of oppression, anything -literally from Maoism to human rights through the Iranian Revolution – becomes a possible resource for him. Yet having well understood the passage of hierarchical “vertical” societies to societies of “horizontal” control, Foucault, entirely repulsed by the state, does not imagine mobilizing against new forms of domination. As for individual “subjectifications,” of which he undertakes an original history from the Greeks onward, finding, not by chance, a particular predilection for the Cynics, they are now marvelously accommodated in new consumer capitalism. Consumer capitalism absorbs all alternative lifestyles as long as they do not touch, through rigorous and substantial thought, its reactor core. It accumulates the benefits of its own criticism by employing an army of “impertinent” servitors (including the “rebel-ocracy” of the spectacle, according to Philippe Murray’s expression, occupying the furthest end of the leash).

Honored by the thinker, the institutions of the republic were not such bad mothers for the university academic. Until 68 he led a good career without making waves, which he pursued at Collège de France. A bit after Mai he became a “fellow traveler” of Maoists specializing in the question of incarceration, before intellectually addressing the Islamic Iranian Revolution at the same time as “les nouveaux philosophes.” (Deleuze had the good taste to keep them in the contempt they deserved). He completes his path with them by joining human rights, which invaded the political field in the late 70s, with hedonism to form the infernal couple of the two following decades. Things get even worse postmortem because the principal editorial heir of Foucault, François Ewald, became a consultant, moreover for the Fédération française des sociétés d’assurance (French Federation of Insurance Companies), the ex-Maoist Denis Kessler became the director of Medef (Movement of the Enterprises of France, the French employers organization). I believe that Foucaldianism no longer fears turning into liberalism one day, it is not against its apparent atmosphere, but in step with it. It’s done. In his life, Foucault adopted the stances of institutional, majority criticism, freely and without risk. With such a sign we can suspect that his claimed positivism, which should a priori lodge its deontology in respect for facts, of having sheltered a deaf servility to implied hegemonic fact, shamefully or unconsciously, under the flamboyance of concepts and poses.

Finally Derrida. He delivered some powerful texts in the epoch of “Writing and Difference” (1967) before strengthening the idea that between concept and metaphor, philosophy and literature, borders should be erased in favor of the notion of “écriture” – which cannot be confused with style according to him. Placing himself in the track of Heidegger, Derrida intends to “(de)construct” the fundamental equation of the Greek philosophical project: the understanding of the essence of things by rational thought. If there is no reason to exclude this project from criticism, which is one of its fundamental gestures, it doesn’t exhaust all its potentialities. We could risk seeming like a humble naif to linger for a moment, despite what disgust, melancholy, or consternation the future of the contemporary West inspires in us, on the highest realizations of the Logos. Thus it would be for Derrida to urgently deconstruct, or more subtly, he would teach an internal deconstruction that thought should garner. But while Heidegger intended to make a “Greco-German” voice more ancient than the calculations of technical rationality, Derrida received his inspiration, from a source close to himself, in Hebrew letters. It draws from, after Lévinas and many other Jewish intellectuals, philosophy from Athens to Jerusalem. He lost himself there without return. While the world is supposed to escape to the logos which endeavors to illuminate it, he henceforth closes himself off in an “écriture” indefinitely undecipherable, in effect we take the route of a desert theology.

Derrida naturally enough adopts the tone of Ecclesiastes belittling the vain human edifices, thus referring the great philosophers to their unthinkables, that which is repressed by their conscious logic, their rational intentions to a letter that, “disséminante” and “ différante”, surpasses them because the infinite works in it. He passes the distinctions on which Western thought rests (cause and effect, substance and accident, object and subject) to the Kabbalistic steamroller with a formal fury that expresses a sort of cold hate. In such an atmosphere of confusion, we move against the spirit of logos with its livable determination. Nothing here seems capable of subsisting, enduring, establishing itself or affirming itself, except maybe, the figure of the prophet philosopher who seems to possess, by himself and himself alone, the consistency of the particular and the magisterium of the universal. He judges without mercy, brandishing a Law as absolute as it is withdrawn from the common, the political works, the cultures, and the particular worlds of peoples (except Israel…) who desire to be someone in history. What remains, on the overall balance, is an impediment to thought and a Judaic contraband theology.

While Deleuze settled with his living concepts in an un-dialectical affirmation, Derrida administers to meaning an infinite correction which, only ever affirming the imperfection of the world, brought a master of obscurity to the professorship. So we go from one French theorist to the other, from the libertarian refusal of dialectic to its submersion in the cold waters of a negative theocracy. Both yield equivalent results: sharing the same hostilities – metaphysics against substance, politics against the nation – they bind philosophy to the cosmopolitanism of human rights.

Derrida showed himself to be more publicly discreet than Foucault. Enjoying comfortable marginalization in the French university, he stacked up American professorships, supported Czech dissidents, returned in 1995 to the support committee for Lionel Jospin, which he left in 2002 because he judged his immigration policy to be merciless … He ultimately accomplished the faultless path of a grand conscience of the “gauche pétitionnaire” – Sephardic Antigone of the amphitheater against the evil Creon of the state – who ventures onto the battlefield only sheltered under the Paraclete of cosmopolitan natural law.

Unless we believe in the Trojan Horse strategy, doubtful in general, we must return to the evidence: insomuch as these thoughts are highly desired by the centers of the “post-modern” capitalist world, which mix hedonism and legalism, they are unfit to fight its toxins. Worse, they expand them. Intellectually emasculating the political capacity of peoples, deconstruction distrusts the state and nation – the actor of power and its legitimate source – to the benefit of unaccountable resistances. Through nature according to Deleuze, through facts with Foucault, by law in the terms of Derrida, we end up losing measure of things, the authority of facts hesitates and the spirit of the laws become unthinkable. By driving away from leftists their patriarchal, national, and industrial configuration, they have lent their ample thoughts to the capitalist enemy, who I would say, have advanced to the puerile stage with them, globalist and consumerist. Through their particular cases the magisterium of 68 is to blame, with its “impossible heritage.”

The French Theorists deconstructed, criticized, or subverted the categories of the Western philosophical tradition. But the weight of things constantly thwarts their vanguardist pretensions of surpassing what, in this tradition, shelters the conditions of a livable world. Even when they approach it more humbly, the same logic of their thought causes them to mistreat “post-modern” history, they do not search in their own epoch, and so they only find expiration dates, shaking with pleasure for each death notice that they think they can announce. In reality, they are complacently posted wherever the “old world” is already dead, they only conjure up past threats by blinding themselves to the present dangers.

Let it be understood: I am not saying the intellectuals in question are behind the times. No, I am quite on the contrary shocked by their collusion with capitalism which seems to inform their critique. If they were “untimely” or “importune,” they would have played as Nietzschean hammers. If they surpassed their epoch, they would follow the totem of philosophers according to Hegel, “The owl of Minerva takes flight at the fall of dusk.” In short, if they thought about their epoch by moving away from it, by surmounting or surpassing it, they would have fulfilled the modern role to which they pretended. But by espousing the elite’s path of 68, they are bygones from a so-called Marxist libertarian revolution to the vintage “anti-racist human rightism” of the 80s. So onward to American universities. But they subsist today, the time of their splendor has passed, an implacable logic returns: by ignoring the basic permanence of things and rushing to the vanguard of the critique of domination, they were irredeemably condemned to espouse the forms that domination stipulated.

Basically old Jacques Duclos was right. In a small work published in the summer of 1968, the Stalinist leader warned against the descendants of Bakunin throwing stones in the Latin Quarter. These leftists he warned, spread a disastrous revolutionary “amorphousness”: their hatred of forms, mores, and institutions condemned them to define liberty as pure negation or, equivalently, as pure plasticity. “To destroy is to create,” thus said Bakunin the eternal adolescent.

At the dawn of modernity, Descartes had a premonition of the terrible audacity that would rise before infinite, unlimited and Promethean will whose power had been revealed by the new science. Power that could be exerted not only against an imperfect intellectual tradition, but also, and it was Descartes’ fear, against all moral and political orders. Thus he did not cease to warn in his “Discourse on Method” against a “democratic” extension of radical doubt that he practiced in the domain of pure thought. From the apprehensive grandeur of these beginnings, we have passed to consumerist “68er” leftism. If it retreats into the past, it continues to irradiate our present as a buried but still active geological stratum.

For forty years, modern liberty thus failed on an artificial beach which, after 1968, buried the hard, virtuous paving stones of the “Gaullo-Communists.”

A hateful little “me” acts there, made from fickle paste, who demands an allowance, and to consume without cleaning his room. Soon a father in roller skates singing Vincent Delerm, he doesn’t hesitate to wear dreadlocks, which are quite accepted at his “job,” hurting his case before the eternal judge of all styles. With age, he takes upon the aspects of an old, arrogant and whiny baby, claiming the nasty air of enjoyment again and again, and who resembles Dany Cohn-Bendit trait for trait, annoying everyone … But Cohn-Bendit will die soon, his world is in its terminal phase, and deconstruction will remain in the history of European thought as the symptom of a passing depression. Political realism, ethical decency, and philosophical consistency have begun their insurrection. But that’s another story. It’s opening before us.

Source: http://katehon.com/fr/article/misere-de-la-deconstruction-deleuze-foucault-derrida-french-theorists-au-service-du-nihilo

Revolutionary Syndicalism: A French Specialty- Rébellion – September 16th 2014


, , ,

French Syndicalism was born from the reaction of the proletariat against democracy” (H. Lagardelle)

In the history of the European worker’s movement, French revolutionary syndicalism holds a special place due to the originality of its organization and its style of action.

Its Origins

The confiscation of the Revolution of 1789 by the bourgeoisie to their benefit alone, lead to the establishment of its domination. One of its priorities was to prevent the workers from organizing themselves in order to defend themselves against their exploitation. Under the fallacious pretext of eliminating the guilds of the Ancien Régime, the “Le Chapelier” law of July 1791 forbid any agreement between workers to assure their interests. Any attempt on their part was judged as “an attempt against liberty and the Declaration of the Rights of Man.”

Consequently, the worker’s movement was born in secrecy. The growing development of worker’s mutual aid organizations was recognized under the Second Empire which ended the criminalization of unionizing in 1864. But the bloody repression of the Commune lead to the disappearance of the best revolutionary cadres; shot, exiled, or deported to penal colonies overseas following the Bloody Week.

The working class would then be under the draconian surveillance of successive governments. The bourgeoisie, fearing a general uprising at any time against its power, encouraged the harshest resolve. We cannot understand bourgeois selfishness without taking into account the permanent fear of being denied the property they had bought up. For the workers, the state became the repressive tool of Capital. In 1831, 1848, and 1871, the ruling classes responded with violence to the legitimate claims of the working class. This experience of repression forged the conviction of the proletarian vanguard that faced with the authorities, they could not negotiate but only fight. The anti-parliamentarianism of revolutionary syndicalism is explained by the conviction that no reform is possible in a system derived from and dominated by capitalism. Anti-militarism also comes from that. The army was no longer the defender of the nation, but the breaker of strikes. The deployment of troops was the response of public power to the people’s expectations. The intense anti-militarist propaganda of the revolutionary syndicalists meet a favorable response in the popular classes forced to see their sons drafted into the service of the repressive regime.

The Labor Exchanges

The proclamation of the Third Republic did not put an end to repression. The disorganization of the syndicalist structures lead to the appearance of reformist groups, preaching agreement with the state and the bourgeoisie, which only confirmed the uselessness of dialogue with oppression. Which transcribed itself into a resurgence of revolutionary oriented syndicates.

During this period, with the goal to control the circulation of its workforce, the employers encouraged municipalities to create labor exchanges with the goal of regulating the labor market at the local level. They multiplied with prodigious speed (the first in Paris in 1887 and from 1890 in Toulouse).

Very quickly, their re-appropriation by revolutionary militants turned the exchanges into centers of social struggle. Organizing workers’ solidarity, they were a laboratory for future forms of action by French syndicalists. This movement was lead by an exceptional man, Fernand Pelloutier who was one of Georges Sorel’s inspirations, who qualified him as “the greatest name in the history of syndicates.” He drove the creation of the French Federation of Labor Exchanges (Fédération des bourses du travail de France). The French workers’ movement owes the idea of the general strike and the independence of the syndicates from political parties and the state to him. He was then in total opposition with Jules Guesde, founder of the Marxist inspired Parti Ouvrier Français, which affirmed the priority of the party’s political action over syndicalist struggles.

The exchanges pursued two axes of action in parallel. In the first place, social action, which consisted of employee placement, to help the workers qualify professionally and improve themselves. The labor exchanges were concrete applications of the revolutionary socialist program through professional and general teaching courses, medical dispensaries charged with fighting against insurance companies too complacent with the employers during work accidents, libraries for the workers’ ideological formation and leisure, or legal teaching services to inform workers about new social laws of the Third Republic. The dimension of popular education was one of Pelloutier priorities, according to his famous quote “educate in order to revolt.” The emancipation of the workers happens first by the realization of the reality of their exploitation. As Emile Pouget declared, “the task of revolutionaries does not consist of attempting violent movements without taking into account contingencies. But to prepare the spirits, so that these movements erupt when favorable circumstances present themselves.”

Secondly, the action of connecting and unifying with worker’s syndicates. The establishment of exchanges lead to the development of syndicates that could rely on their networks. They were gathering places for striking workers, strikes funds were raised from dues in the factories in order to aid the workers in the struggle. CGT (Confédération Générale du Travail) and the Federation of Exchanges merged in 1902 during the Montpellier congress, thus constituting a single central organization composed of two sections, that of the worker’s federations, and that of the labor exchanges. But before that a founding event for the French syndicalist movement took place: the birth of the CGT.


1895: The CGT

In 1884, when the law authorized the creation of syndicates, the Republic tried to seduce the working class in order to make them forget its objective alliance with big capital. The majority of the workers remained distrustful, considering that this law was conceived in order to control the existence of structures that were clandestine until then.

After preliminary negotiations, at Limoges in September 1895 the Confédération Générale du Travail arose, which fixed its principal objective as “to unite workers in struggle on the economic field and in bonds of tight solidarity, for their complete emancipation.”

After the first chaotic years, under the leadership of Victor Griffuelhes the organization would experience a period of intense activity. Named secretary general of CGT, this old worker was a fierce Blanquist militant, devoted to making the organization a machine of class war.

With Emile Pouget, his faithful comrade, we find him everywhere where strikes erupt. Not accustomed to interminable discussions, he imposed his authority with an iron hand. For which he would often be reproached and which would earn him many enemies, but we can never question his interest. Thanks to his relentless character, disputes between different currents were muted and the syndicate could retain total independence regarding the state which tried to corrupt the syndicalist leaders.

During the adoption of the Charter of Amiens, during the confederate congress of 1905, we recall that : “The CGT, beyond any political school, gathers all the workers aware of the struggle to bring about the disappearance of wage labor and the employers… The congress considers that this declaration is a recognition of the class struggle in the economic domain that opposes the workers in revolt against any form of exploitation and oppression, both material and moral, established by the capitalist class against the working class.

Direct Action

In the socialist movement in January 1905, Victor Griffuelhes gave the following definition of direct action: “Direct action means the action of the workers themselves. That is to say, action that is directly exercised by the interested parties. It is the worker himself who directs his efforts; he personally exercises them against the powers that dominate him, in order to obtain the benefits he demands from them. Through direct action, the worker creates his own struggle, he leads it , resolved not to grant to another person the responsibility for his own emancipation.

The revolutionary syndicalists lead the struggle for the improvement of labor conditions so that “the daily struggle prepares, organizes, and realizes the Revolution” as Griffuelhes wrote.

Direct action, done by active and aware minorities, aimed to strike the spirits (like during the general strike of 1907 where Paris found itself plunged into darkness following a sabotage action by revolutionary syndicalist electricians). It must impose the will of the workers on the employer, the possible use of just proletarian violence can enter into this strategy. “Actually there is only complete emancipation if the exploiters and bosses disappear and if the slate is wiped clean of all capitalist institutions. Such a task cannot be conducted peacefully – and even less legally! History teaches us that the privileged have never sacrificed their privileges without being compelled and forced to do so by their revolting victims. It is improbable that the bourgeoisie have exceptional magnanimity and will abdicate willingly… It will be necessary to resort to force, which, like Karl Marx said, is the midwife of societies.” (Emile Pouget-La CGT).

The Myth of the General Strike in Action

A fierce battle between the CGT and the state for the eight hour work day engaged in 1904. The campaign culminated in a demonstration of force on May 1st 1906, which was actively organized for a year. All the forces of the organization were thrown into the battle for eight hours. The context was then insurrectionist, the world of labor was seething following the drama of the Courrières mine where 1200 miners found death. 40000 miners in Pas-de-Calais went on strike spontaneously. Repression didn’t solve anything and the anger spread. Nearly 200,000 strikers mobilized in construction (a bastion of revolutionary syndicalists), metallurgy, printing … the movement culminated with 438,500 strikers throughout France! The government maintained the fear of imminent social war and collusion between the two anti-system forces of the epoch: the revolutionary syndicalist movement and the nationalist movement (convergences observed by Professor Zeev Sternhell).

Before this alliance, the Republic rapidly reacted, Clemenceau, named Minister of the Interior, directed the repression. Griffuelhes and the principal directors of the CGT were arrested without reason (including the treasurer Lévy who would be returned by the police during his imprisonment). The 1st of May was accompanied by an important mobilization of the Republic’s guard dogs that multiplied the arrests and fired on the crowd of strikers. In common agreement, the authorities and the employers organized the dismissal of the functionaries and workers most engaged in direct action, blacklists of militants were created to make their hiring impossible.

But where Clemenceau and his successor A. Briand were the most effective, was in the turning syndicalist leaders through corruption and the infiltration of provocateurs (the archives of the police prefecture are full of their reports on the activities of the CGT) who spread discontent and discredited the action of revolutionary syndicalists. Furthermore, the aggravation of internal dissent and the wars of tendencies created an explosive situation among the leadership.

The Rupture: The Proletariat Against the Republic

It was the Draveil-Vigneux affair, assembled from scratch by Aristide Briand, then Minister of the Interior that put flame to gunpowder. A demonstration of diggers and railway workers in the Parisian region on July 30th 1908 turned into a riot. We note two deaths among the workers. The CGT called for the workers mobilization in a general strike. Following a demonstration at Villeneuve-Saint-Georges they lamented seven more deaths. By the aid of an agent provocateur, the Minister of the Interior found the pretext to arrest most of the confederate leadership, among them secretary general Victor Griffuelhes, which allowed the traitors to benefit from his imprisonment in order to stage a veritable putsch.

The liberation of the imprisoned leaders was not delayed, but in the shadows the henchmen of Briand, and notably the treasurer Lévy (likely corrupt) and Latapie, launched a veritable cabal against Griffuelhes, openly accusing him of misuse of funds in the affair of the purchase of a confederate local. The following congress exonerated Griffuelhes of any suspicion, but the crisis was opened, as the embittered secretary general resigned. Niel succeded him, who was elected the 25th of February 1909, as secretary general of the CGT with the reformist votes. But the revolutionary syndicalists didn’t leave him alone: six months later Niel was forced to resign in turn.

He was replaced by Léon Jouhaux. It is not astonishing that tension with the state powers started to rise again from 1910. In October, the strike of railway workers, situated in the scheme of a grand campaign against the high cost of living, made Briand envision the dissolution of the CGT. Briand decided to make an example: the Durand affair. The secretary of the charcoal burners syndicate of Havre was condemned to death for strike actions that he was entirely uninvolved with. A vast workers’ protest movement was unleashed.

At this crucial moment in its history, the working world was largely opposed to the liberal Republic. It was disgusted by the attitude of the old Dreyfusards (Clemenceau et Briand), who had called for the working class to mobilize for justice and then once in power revealed themselves to be assassins of the people. This rejection of democracy was demonstrated until the war. The eruption of the Great War was a failure for the revolutionary syndicalists. After having done everything to halt the march towards war, the patriotic elan towards the Sacred Union carried them away. Léon Jouhaux, at the grave of Jaurès, called for the workers to rally towards the regime. This rally towards the Sacred Union marked the end of the heroic period of the syndicalism of direct action within the CGT, which, after the war was taken over by bureaucrats who made it the reformist tool we know today.

Source: http://rebellion-sre.fr/le-syndicalisme-revolutionnaire-une-specificite-francaise/

Georges Sorel: A Revolutionary Socialist -Thibault Isabel – Rébellion – November 16th, 2016


, , ,

Georges Sorel (1847-1922) was one of the great leaders of socialism at the end of the 19th century and at the start of 20th. Similar in spirit to Charles Péguy, he was also a reconciler of Marx and Proudhon, he had a highly mystical and moral vision of revolution, which made him hate reformists “like Jaurès,” who he said were ready to sell the purity of socialist ideas in the name of a policy of conciliation with bourgeois and parliamentary democracy.

For Sorel, like for Proudon, the purpose of the fight for justice was firstly moral: men must strengthen their character through the exercise of struggle. It is exactly through the free action of syndicates that the working classes can preserve the greatness of their culture, free from any purely political purposes. Furthermore Sorel defended the values of the producers, attached to work, effort, creativity, and the shaping of material, in opposition to the decadent values of the propertied, only concerned with enjoyment and profiting from the work of others.

It was firstly and above all the nihilistic hedonism of the bourgeois world that repelled Sorel, as well as the absence of convictions that was inevitably its corollary, the small-mindedness, the pettiness, the narrowness of view. But paradoxically, in the eyes of the thinker, there was hardly any difference between the morality of the bourgeoisie and that of the socialist leaders: if he castigated the mediocrity of present world of money, which no longer even had the force and will that the grand captains of industry of the past demonstrated, he didn’t have words harsh enough for the existential misery that he found in all the reformist compromises, or even in the regular strikes lead by the workers, ready to sacrifice the nobility of their struggle in order to earn a few social advantages accorded for purely clientelist ends.

Sorel demanded that they substitute the idea of the general strike, borrowed from Fernand Pelloutier, and destined to serve as the regenerating myth of the worker’s world, in place of the aforementioned strikes. The general strike, he said, must be lead in a spirit of excess, with the goal of realizing the most worthwhile revolution, in which the greatest number are liberated. It must not reestablish an economic logic, but on the contrary aim at an ethical reform of society, furthermore it’s how the proletariat could truly learn to be itself and fulfill all its most remarkable potentials.

Long a supporter of unions, nevertheless Sorel would be immensely disappointed by the evolution of the social struggle. He therefore experienced a period of wandering, that would lead him to criss-cross alternately from the side of the royalists, the nationalists, and the Bolsheviks, before finally returning, not without a certain skepticism, to his first political loves. But, despite his multiple wanderings, Sorel’s ideas evolved very little, in substance, during the course of his life. If his personal journey lead him to successively join many different groups or movements, each time he was disappointed to see ideas as intransigent as his could hardly incite broad shared agreement. So he would eventually die quite disillusioned…

Source: http://rebellion-sre.fr/georges-sorel-socialiste-revolutionnaire/

Hitler vs Strasser, The Historic Debate of May 21st and 22nd 1930 – Otto Strasser


, , , ,

The 21st of May.

Thursday May 21st, around 12:15, Mr Hess, Adolf Hitler’s personal secretary, called me to arrange a meeting with Mister Hitler at one at the Hotel Sanssouci. I was about to leave for Oranienburg in order to reorganize our weekly paper. I nevertheless accepted the invitation, which could permit the settling of old policies.

The meeting between Hitler and myself took place at 1, without witness, in his private room in the Hotel Sanssouci.

Mister Hitler welcomed me with a flood of reproach regarding the attitude of the Editions Combat press. Many articles, notably the ones published in April, were, according to him, against the program of NSDAP and the most elementary rules of discipline, and required his intervention against Editions Combat and the opinions expressed there.

Mr Hitler indicated to me that these attacks, prejudicial to the party, were too harsh. His patience was at an end, and he demanded after my repeated refusals, my final acceptance of the dissolution of Editions Combat, without which he would be forced to take all necessary measures.

Before this threat, I rose and said that I had expected this meeting would help clarify our differences, but that I could not accept an ultimatum.

Mr Hitler agreed that he wanted this explanation. He attached the greatest price to my work, he fully acknowledged my work and wanted to keep me in the party. That was the reason for his invitation. I was young, a front line veteran and an old National Socialist, so I could be convinced. On the other hand, a conversation with Count Reventlow would have been superfluous, as this caricature of a journalist was incorrigible, he reiterated the same theories for decades. I replied that his criticisms were too general for me to respond to them concretely. Regarding the articles of the last few weeks, we could say two things. Firstly regarding the formalities: except for two articles, A New Biedermeier by Wendland in NS Letters and Unfaithfulness and Infidelity by Herbert Blank in The NS of April 22nd, all the texts were reprinted by the very official NSDAP press bureau. The ND was only following the example of many other party journals. Then regarding the fundamentals: I entirely shared the opinions defended in these different articles and desired that they be at the center of our meeting.

On the first point, Hitler formally agreed with me, I was right, and that these men of the NSPK would be held responsible; in particular Stöhr would be removed from his role as director of editing. He raised his voice with much force against the two articles on the subject, about which he expressed the following opinion: “The article in NS Letters is an infamous attack against Mr Frick, the National Socialist prime minister. The nomination of Schulze-Naumburg is of high cultural significance, as Schulze-Naumburg is a first rank artist. Only a few artistic notions are sufficient to see that Schulze-Naumburg knows how to teach German art better than anyone. And you join the Jewish press to shove the dagger in our backs by your attacks against the nomination of a National Socialist minister!”

I replied that in a magazine of debates such as NS Letters, it was my duty to let the young National Socialist artists grouped around Wendland, himself an active artist, express themselves. And moreover this article, while fully recognizing the merits of Schulze-Naumburg, expressed a fear I shared. In the cultural scheme, National Socialism should not reject the current of modern art that seeks to come to light. It must not repress its precious and youthful forces by clinging to outdated models.

Hitler replied: “All that you’ve said only shows that you have no idea about art. There is not ancient and modern art, anymore than there is revolution in art. There is only eternal art, Greek art, Nordic art, and any other appellation: Dutch art, Italian art, German art, is illusory. Moreover, Gothic art doesn’t exist in isolation, it responds to the ancient canons. All that I claim for art necessarily claims its origin in Greece.”

I responded that actually, I was not competent to state definitive opinions in the matter of art, but that naturally, I saw in art the expression of the soul of the people. I only recognized rooted art. Art that could never lose its character through decadence, through phases of sickness. Naturally, and not by virtue of a theory of knowledge, I thought that the popular expression of art followed the mutations of dominant ideas, and thus by a sense of the world at the time. I then briefly replied that Chinese, Egyptian, etc art were expressions of different peoples.

On this point Hitler said: “You hold liberal opinions, there is no Chinese or Egyptian art. I already told you, there is only Greek and Nordic art. You should know that the Chinese and moreover the Egyptians are not homogeneous peoples. Dominating these composite and inferior populations, there is always a Nordic elite that created the master works we admire today under the name of Chinese or Egyptian art. And each time this Nordic minority disappears, the Manchus for example, art declines.”

Mister Hitler elaborated for a long time on the subject of art, the different styles, etc. I can only repeat that the importance of this question assuredly merited a discussion of which the incriminating article was only an introduction.

The Hitler’s criticism was just as vehement, regarding the second article, Unfaithfulness and Infidelity by Herbert Blank. According to him, the article incited party members to rebellion. Actually, it deliberately dissociated itself from the idea of fidelity to the Führer and prioritized faithfulness to the idea over the faithfulness due to the Führer.

Firstly I defended myself from wanting to denigrate his personality, that was not the intention of the article. And I added, “However, it’s a German Protestant trait that holds the idea in the highest esteem. All his acts are guided by his conscience. In the practical scheme, the Führer could fall ill, he could die, or become estranged from the idea. Thus conscience must rely on the idea, the directors of the party, at any level, are only its executors. Such is the cornerstone of German Protestantism in my opinion. Ideas are the divine essence, they are eternal. On the other hand, men are only bodies in which the Word was made flesh.”

Hitler: “You hide your ineptitude under pious discourse. In reality, you pretend to give to each member of the party the right to decide the idea, and even to decide if the Führer is faithful to the idea or not. But democracy has no place in our ranks. With us, the Führer and the idea are one, and each member of the party must do what the Führer, who is the is the embodiment of the idea and the only one who knows the ultimate goal, commands.”

Me: “Mister Hitler, your statements denote the Roman Papist vision of the world like Fascist Rome, and I can only respond with the words of Luther: Here I stand, I cannot help it! I must reaffirm that in my eyes, the idea, here the National Socialist idea, is essential, and that my conscience is ready to make a choice when it arises or the divide between the idea and the Führer increases.”

Him: “Yes, we diverge here considerably. You bring us back to democracy, and democracy is dissolved. Our organization is founded on discipline, and I will not let it be dismembered by a handful of writers. You yourself knew the army. See how your brother although he is not always in agreement with me, he bends to this discipline, for him I have much esteem. And I ask you if accept this discipline, yes or no.”

Me: “Discipline is only an instrument in order to lead a community in a direction, not to educate it in a single way. The world war sufficiently taught it. In the last months of the conflict, it was not discipline that lead us to accept the hardest tests of the soul and heart, it was an imperative of our conscience, the feeling of duty. Do not be mislead by the easy approval of the creatures that surround you…”

Him: “I cannot tolerate such calumnies against my collaborators!”

Me: “Mr Hitler, do not give us illusions! They have enough intellectual capacities to forge their own opinion, and the sufficient character to express it when it differs from yours. And do you really think that my brother would bend to this discipline if he wasn’t financially dependent on its mandate?”

Hitler swore that if he extended me his hand today, it was precisely in memory of my brother who had suffered greatly from our differences and for himself.

Him: “Once again, I offer you the post of national press leader. You will come with me to Munich, where you will be directly under my authority. You could put all your work and intelligence, which I esteem, in the service of the movement.”

I responded that I could only accept this offer if we were in fundamental agreement regarding political goals. I added verbatim: “If it turns out that our views still differ, you will have the impression that I have deceived you, and I myself the feeling of having been betrayed. The most important thing seems to me that we have a deep discussion on political objectives. I would be ready to return to Munich for four weeks and discuss all the questions with you and eventually with Rosenberg, whose hostility towards me I am aware of, and primarily the questions of foreign policy and socialism as in my opinion, Rosenberg is the most distant from my conceptions.”

Thereafter, Mr Hitler told me that this proposal had come too late, that I should decide for myself now, failing that he would take the necessary measures on Monday. That is to say he would declare that Editions Combat had brought harm to the interests of the party, that all members of the party would be banned from the dissemination and propagation of the Edition Combat’s magazines, that he would exclude me and the people surrounding me from the party.

I responded that Mr Hitler did indeed have the opportunity to take these measures, but he had thus proved something that I never believed was possible until now: his total disagreement with our revolutionary socialist will, as expressed for five years in Editions Combat, where it was the goal and essential object.

I roughly said this: “Mister Hitler, I have the impression that you forgot to say the true reasons that push you to destroy Editions Combat; the real stake is this revolutionary socialism we advocate, you desire to sacrifice it to establish the legality of the party and in order to cooperate with the bourgeois right (Hugenberg, Stahlhelm, etc)”

Mister Hitler rejected this opinion very quickly: “Unlike people such as the wealthy Count Reventlow, I am socialist. I started as a simple worker, and today still, I do not allow my chauffeur to receive another meal than me. But your socialism is Marxism pure and simple. You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.”

Me: “Mister Hitler, this opinion overwhelms me. A vision founded on race is erroneous. In my opinion, race is only the initial first material. For example, the German people are constituted by four or five different races. To which we add geopolitical, climactic influences, and others, external pressure, internal fusion, which forged what we call a people. The following step is born from living together and becoming aware of this life: this superior form is the nation, born for us in August 1914. The racial vision of Rosenberg that you have made yours denies the great task of National Socialism, the constitution of the German people into a nation, and will even lead to the dissolution of this people. So it denies, in my eyes, the objective and the meaning of the German revolution to come.”

Him: “You are a liberal. Every revolution is fundamentally racial. There are no social, political, or economic revolutions. Combat always opposes an inferior racial sub-stratum to a superior ruling race. When the superior race forgets this law, it loses the fight. All historical global revolutions, and I have studied many of them, are nothing other than racial combat. So read Rosenberg’s new book (Hitler meant the Myth of the 20th Century). You have all the responses there. The book has considerable breadth, even superior to the Foundations of the the 19th Century by Chamberlain. Your errors in the domain of foreign policy are explained by your ignorance of racial factors. For example, you are enthusiastic about the Hindu independence movement … you know the Anglo-Saxons have the mission to govern the people they have subdued, precisely in the name of their superiority. The Nordic race is called to dominate the world, and this right must guide our foreign policy. It’s why we cannot envision any rapprochement with Russia, which is a Slavic-Tatar body surmounted by a Jewish head. I knew Slavs from my home country. In the era where a Germanic head ruled the Slavic body, entente was possible, Bismarck outlined this rapprochement before. But today, it would be a crime.”

I retorted that it seemed to me that foreign policy could not be dictated by such considerations. “The only important thing to know in matters of foreign policy is if a population could serve Germany or harm it. In the first case, I would treat it favorably, even if I had great antipathy for that people, in the second case, it would treat it poorly, even if I was personally sympathetic to the people in question. In the matter, I am of the opinion that the first duty of Germany in regard to foreign policy is the abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles. If I go over the powers that – for purely selfish motives, of course – share this same desire, I only see Italy and Russia. That’s why I am favorable to rapprochement with Italy, although Italians are unfriendly to me, and, likewise, an entente with Russia seems possible, at least theoretically. I have as little enthusiasm for Bolshevism as I do for Fascism, and I am as indifferent to the personality of Stalin as I am to that of Mussolini, MacDonald, or Poincaré. I only see the interests of Germany.”

Mister Hitler agreed with me on the primacy of Germany’s interests in the matter of foreign policy. In his eyes, an entente with England corresponded with this imperative, the goal was the Nordic domination of Europe, and through America Nordic-Germanic domination of the world.

It was getting late – it had nearly been 4 hours – I asked to continue our conversation tomorrow, on the specific subject of socialism. He declared, “But the question of foreign policy is purely theoretical for the moment. Neither you nor me make decisions and I can satisfy myself with this formulation, that foreign policy only obeys a singular objective: the good of Germany. Cultural policy is not very important in my eyes, in any case it seems quite second rank now. In my eyes, the decisive and central question is economic organization and socialism, as it’s in this matter that I have the greatest doubts about the party’s policy.”

We agreed to resume our conversation tomorrow morning, the 22nd of May at 10.

We the undersigned declare that this account is faithful to the narrative that Dr Strasser gave of his meeting over the past few hours, the night of 21st of May.

Richard Shapke, Herbert Blank, Günther Kübler, Paul Brinkman.
Berlin, June 2
nd 1930

May 22nd

Thursday May 22nd, at 10 in the morning, after a brief meeting with my brother Gregor, I returned to the Hotel Sanssouci with Mister Hitler, as we had agree previously.

As we had outlined the plan of the day’s conversation yesterday, I had reflected on five fundamental points which I communicated to my brother in the course of our brief meeting, they were as followed:

1 We want a German revolution that fundamentally encompasses all domains and involves all means.

2 It follows from the above that we are equally opposed to bourgeois capitalism and internationalist Marxism.

3 In my eyes, property is not inalienable, we desire a German socialism, and thus participation in all the ownership, direction, and profits of the German economy.

4 This revolutionary position forbids us from participation in a coalition government.

5 This anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist attitude means that we do not envision military intervention against Russia.

I met Mister Hitler at breakfast. On this occasion, we would only discuss general questions, the announcement of the dissolution of the Saxon parliament, and perspectives on the next election. After which we met in the room of the hotel where I found myself in the company of many. Mister Adolf Hitler, his personal secretary Rudolf Hess, Minster Amann, director of the Völkischer Beobachter, my brother Gregor Strasser, Mister Hans Hinkel, associate of the Editions Combat Society and myself. I asked Mister Hitler if our conversation would take place between four pairs of eyes, because I wanted to know the real thoughts of Hitler, without there being other people to take into consideration. This proposition was rejected by Mister Hitler, as the people present were directly concerned with the debate.

On the other hand, I was indifferent about debating the fundamental questions of socialism before a larger audience, that’s why I accepted, knowing that my interlocutors were, in any case, favorable to Mister Hitler.

At Hitler’s demand, I began in roughly these terms: “The discussion yesterday showed that important points should be clarified. Namely to know if you, like me, are of the opinion that the revolution to which we aspire must be implemented on political, economic, and spiritual level. In which case that implies that we be inflexible and fight bourgeois capitalism and internationalist Marxism with equal ardor, which leads us to the central point of this meeting. Our propaganda must not only attach itself to the anti-Marxist struggle, it must equally attack capitalism and found a German socialism.

Which necessitates that we clarify the concept of property. I believe that religious respect for private property excludes all possibility of German socialism. We naturally know that all culture rests on ownership, but recognize the extraordinary importance of this ascertainment, namely that the material foundation allows the human being to flourish and have a proud and proper bearing, thus the necessity of giving the non-property owning 80% of Germans the possibility of acquiring a form of property. Today’s capitalist system doesn’t give them this possibility. The position to-day, is like that before the Wars of Liberation. At that time Baron vom Stein said these words which inspires us today: “If the nation is to achieve freedom and honor, it will be necessary to give the oppressed sections of this nation property and the right of co-determination.”

The oppressed then were the serfs who cultivated the land without owning anything, not even their bodies. It was necessary to liberate the peasantry. Today we must liberate the working masses. In that time, they authorized the henceforth free peasants to acquire land in participate in our common destiny. Today the working masses must acquire ownership and be involved in decision making.

Private property was conceived for agriculture, as the soil is divisible into little parcels. In industrial matters, things present themselves differently, so we must opt for collective ownership of the enterprises in which people work. In order to distribute land to the peasants, Stein had to confiscate it from the large landowners, as he couldn’t find un-owned land. Today we must do the same: the entrepreneurs maintain a monopoly on industrial property, so we must seize a part of this property to give to the workers, and in a broader sense, to the people collectively. These proposals will be treated as Bolshevism, but the large landowners treated Baron Vom Stein as a Jacobin. However: the liberation of Prussia was unthinkable without the liberation of the peasantry. Likewise, the liberation of Germany happens through the liberation of the German workers.”

On the demand of Mister Hitler, I declared that in my opinion, 49% of property and wealth should remain in the hands of their current owners, 41% should return to the state which represents the nation, and 10% to the personnel of the enterprise. Decisions should be made with equal representation between the entrepreneur, the state, and the employees, in a way that reduces the influence of the state and increases that of the workers.

Hitler: “That’s Marxism, Bolshevism, pure and simple. You pretend to extend this democracy to economics, which lead us politically to Russia, and ruins the entire nation in the same stroke. Likewise, you will end all progress of humanity, which was always made by an individual, by a great inventor.”

I replied by rejecting this notion of progress. For me, the invention of toilets is not a cultural act.

Hitler: “You want to completely deny the evolution of humanity since the stone age until the formidable inventions of modern technology, erase it with a stroke of the pen in the name of a system that you’ve imagined.”

I responded to him that I did not believe in the progress of humanity. Moreover, I think that man has remained the same for millennia, even if he has modified his appearance. Mister Hitler do you believe that Goethe is obsolete because he didn’t drive an automobile or Napoleon because he didn’t have the radio? I only see stages of alteration in this pretense of progress. The 20 year old man dreams of being 30 and that is progress. The man in his forties who will turn 50 will be more circumspect, and the 60 year old would hardly see the years to come as progress. Actually, contrary to what the liberals pretend, the organism doesn’t develop in a linear fashion, by through biological cycles of life and death.

Mister Hitler responded that my statements were purely theoretical. Practical life attests day after day to the technological progress of humanity, progress that always finds its driving force in the greater individuals.

I objected that the great names of history didn’t know the meaning of the role they played. Man is not the creator of history, he is the instrument of destiny.

Mister Hitler then brusquely asked me if I also intended to deny that he had founded National Socialism. I denied it in effect, as I saw National Socialism as the fruit of destiny, an idea implanted, more or less deeply, in the hearts of hundreds of thousands of men, and with pressing consequences. It had found a perfectly strong expression with him, Hitler, but the concurrent appearance of National Socialism and the likewise proved that it was a historical process more than an affair of man or organization. This observation holds for the establishment of capitalism, beyond notions of good or bad. Today, the capitalist system is in decline, it is moribund and must cede its place to socialism, which will forge the next 150 years.

Hitler: “What you call socialism is a purely Marxist vision. The system that you erect is academic work, it doesn’t correspond to the reality of life. In this sense there is no capitalist system. The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.”

I replied that a simple look over the rulers of the capitalist system demonstrates that is exactly the opposite of natural selection in our sense. And is it natural, when selection is done by money! The acquisition of wealth is the worst criterion for a man aspiring to heroism. In contrast, the socialist system favors responsibility, service to the community, and respect for the citizens, creating an entirely different natural selection.

But when Hitler defended the idea that the economy should obey the criteria of profitability, I interjected: “In this regard, National Socialism defends a completely opposite position! In my eyes, the economy has no other meaning and no other duty besides that of assuring the nourishment, clothing, and dwelling of the nation, and securing reserves for times of war or want. But if we consider the economy as the means to cover our needs, it is indifferent to the costs of production being higher in Germany than in other countries. In a National Socialist Germany, it doesn’t matter if American farmers produce corn at half the cost, because the global market doesn’t interest us. Naturally, that implies economic autarky, and in order to implement it, a state monopoly on international exchanges that is the only guarantee of an advantageous trade policy for the nation.”

Hitler: “Your theories is disastrous and dilettantish. So do you think that we can withdraw ourselves from global commerce? We need to import the essential raw materials and export our own manufactured goods. A few months ago, I received a report from East Asia on global economic competition (Hitler was alluding to a letter from Lieutenant Kriebel, who was then in China). We cannot nor do we want to hinder this evolution. Quite the opposite, the white, Nordic, race has a mission to organize the world in such a manner that each country produces what suits it best. It is incumbent upon us to realize this grandiose project. Believe me, National Socialism would mean little if it was limited to Germany alone and did not seal the domination of the world by the white race for 1000 or 2000 years. That doesn’t mean the exploitation of other races. To put it simply, the inferior races are called to realize other destinies than the superior races. We want to assure the domination of the world in concert with the Anglo-Saxons.”

I replied that I was appalled by the definition of such an objectives that joins the ideal of high finance, which sees the world as a vast field of exchanges destructive to national economies and all differences between peoples. For me, National Socialism restrains its objectives to national autarky whose strength and vital force is the unique conditions of supply in the absence of any imperialist or capitalist objectives.

My brother intervened here in the debate in order to say to Mister Hitler that in his opinion also, we must aim for economic autarky and reduce our involvement with the global economy to the necessary minimum for the provision of raw materials.

Mister Hitler responded that autarky could be aimed for in the long term, but that wouldn’t be for 100 years, we could not subsist in the absence of external exchanges of goods.

A long economic discussion followed on that exact point, that I quickly brought back to the socialist field with a concrete question for Mister Hitler: “If you seized power in Germany tomorrow what would you immediately do with the Krupp firm? Regarding the shareholders, the workers, the property, the benefits, and the direction, would you keep things as they are?”

Hitler: “Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests.”

Me: “But Mister Hitler, if you want to preserve the capitalist system, you don’t have the right to speak of socialism! As the militants are socialists in the first rank, they refer to the program of the party, which expressly demands the socialization of enterprises of national interest.”

Him: “The expression of socialism is faulty in itself, and above all: it doesn’t imply that enterprises must be nationalized, but only that they can be, in the scenario where they operate against the interest of the nation. For a long time that hasn’t been the case, it would be criminal to destroy the economy.”

Me: “I’ve never seen a capitalist claim that he acts for the good of the nation. How do you say that from the outside? How do you think to anchor the right of state intervention, without creating a body of functionaries with limitless and arbitrary power over the economy, and moreover is that not more disruptive for it than socialism?”

Him: “Fascism offers us a model that we can absolutely replicate! As it is in the case of Fascism, the entrepreneurs and the workers of our National Socialist state sit side by side, equal in rights, the state strongly intervenes in the case of conflict to impose its decision and end economic disputes that put the life of the nation in danger.”

Me: “Fascism has not found its way between capital and labor. It hasn’t even searched for it, it limits itself to containing social struggles by maintaining the all powerlessness of capital over labor. Fascism is not the overcoming of capitalism. On the contrary, until now in any case, it has maintained the capitalist system in its power, as you would do yourself.”

Him: “That is only theory. In reality, there is only a single economic system: responsibility upwards, authority downwards. I expect that Mister Amann will have authority over his subordinates and accountability for his acts before me. Mister Amann expects his department head to act responsibly towards him and demands the obeisance of his stenographers, which in turn are responsible before their department heads and exercise their authority in their duties. It has been like that for millennia and it cannot be else-wise.”

Me: “So what is the difference between the executive responsible before the board (he must realize maximum returns) who rules over his employees and workers, and the shop foreman who responds with his team before the director of the factory (he ensures everyone works hard) and has authority over the workers?”

Him: “The system is just, and there cannot be any other. The system today only lacks responsibility before the nation. A system that rests on anything other than authority downwards and responsibility upwards cannot really make decisions, it engenders anarchy and Bolshevism. That is clear from even the nature of the production process, which knows no distinction between capitalism and socialism.”

Me: “It’s true Mister Hitler, the processes of production remain the same. The assembly of a car is not much different in the socialist system than in the capitalist system. On the other hand, the policies of production, the economic objectives are the responsibility of the system. And a few years ago, the system gave to two or three dozen men, no better or worse than others, the judicial, moral, and economic means to throw 250,000 workers in the Ruhr into the streets, a million Germans including their families, because a title of ownership conferred them unlimited decision making power, I say that it’s the system that is criminal and we must change it, and not the men. The reality of capitalism and the necessity of instituting socialism is clearly visible.”

Him: “But in order to change this institution, there is no need for the workers to become co-owners of the enterprise or participate in its decisions. It’s the role of a strong state to assure that production serves the interests of the nation. If it is lacking in certain cases, the state will take energetic measures, seizing the enterprise and putting its destiny in its hands.”

Me: “But that would not change the destiny of the workers, objects of the economy, rather than subjects. Moreover, I note that you were ready to break with the sacrosanct principle of the inviolability of private property. Then take that step, why bother with arbitrary intervention case by case by functionaries insufficiently informed of local conditions and at the mercy of personal denunciations, why not directly and organically anchor this right of intervention in the economy?”

Him: “Some fundamental differences oppose us here, as collective ownership and decision making resemble Marxism. But, for my part, I reserve the right of intervention to an elite within the state.”

The debate found itself interrupted by the arrival of Mister Stohr and Mister Buch, who accompanied Hitler to his private room, joined by Mister Hess. It was about half past one. I stayed for a moment with the remaining people, nothing decisive was said. Mister Hitler never informed me of the results of these two long meetings, neither verbally, nor by writing.

Source: https://europapatrianostra.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/hitler-strasser-lentretien-historique-des-21-et-22-mai-1930/

Interview with Zakhar Prilepin – Breizh-Info – November 22nd, 2016


, , , , , , ,

This Saturday, the journal Éléments organized its colloquium in Paris “Russie : à l’est, du nouveau ?” Among the invitees present, there was Zakhar Prilepin, who spoke for a long time, in Russian, with a translator at his side, before a full room – nearly 250 people, many of whom came from the Russian diaspora in France.

Zakhar Prilepin, whose real name is Evgenii Nikolaevitch Prilepin, was born in 1975 in a village in the Ryazan region. A journalist, linguist, and Russian politician, since 1996 a member of the National Bolshevik Party, and the Other Russia coalition, he opposed Putin and the liberal and pro-European orientation of Russia. In 2014, with Russian Spring and the return of Crimea, followed by the start of the independence war in Donbass, Russian power became more interventionist in the economy, more conservative and patriotic, in unison with civil society. Zakhar Prilepin, who became a war correspondent in Donbass and gathered humanitarian aid for its population, abandoned his opposition to Putin. An author of books – many of which have been translated into French, he is also a journalist on Russian television (Ren TV, Tsargrad TV) and has written for many print and web Russian media outlets (Ogoniok, Svobodnaia Pressa, Izvestia, Novaya Gazeta).

After his speech, we met with Zakhar Prilepin.

Breizh Info : Zakhar Prilepin, what do you think about Putin today, to whom you were opposed in the past?

Zakhar Prilepin : Putin gave Russia a big chance to have a new history. I hope that he will change the liberal course of the economy, set the bar a bit further left. On this subject, it’s will be important to know who will replace Ulyukayev [the economic development minister, a convinced liberal, fired after having been implicated in a corruption scandal].

Breizh Info : The German newspaper Die Press announced in a recent article that Russia is less dependent on petroleum revenue and it will renew economic growth in 2017. Furthermore, it is today experiencing a new industrial and agricultural revolution, with numerous factories opening. Is the economic crisis finished?

Zakhar Prilepin : There is no visible economic crisis and far fewer criminal or ethnic gangs in the streets of Russian cities, as was the case in the 1990s… or today in the big European cities. That said, it’s evident that the population was impoverished during the 2015-2016 crisis, but the social attitudes towards the crisis changed. Increasingly people leave cities in order return to country, while rural exodus was important from the immediate post-war era until the 2000s.

Breizh Info : The demographic statistics for Russia from January to August 2016 were just published. They testify to a natural balance of births and death of 8,200 people, with a birth rate stronger than a mortality rate in 28 regions – including the rural regions which were in decline until now – and decrease in abortions by a third in four years, from 735,000 thousand in 2011 to 447,000 in 2015. Is this the end of the Russian deep demographic decline?

Zakhar Prilepin : Certainly the situation for agriculture and thus the rural regions was improved thanks to the sanctions and the Russian embargo on products from Western countries. But the possibility of stopping this embargo worries Siberian peasants who demonstrate their strong opposition to the end of Russian sanctions. Yet, there is other good news: in relation to the years 1990-2000, where the objective of those who held power was to enrich themselves to the maximum, the people in power have matured and realized that there is no substitute for Russia. A self-preservation mechanism was put in place, which made it possible to dismiss the rotten and those who were determined to serve a master other than the Russian people.

Breizh Info : Do you think with Russian Spring, in 2014, a new generation of leaders will enter politics and give an extra push towards more patriotic values, more socially conservative and interventionist in the economy?

Zakhar Prilepin : During Russian Spring, there were many soldiers, who were invested in society. Once Russian Spring ended, they returned to the army. There are relatively few political leaders on that level, with the exception of the former governor of Sevastopol, Alexeï Tchaly.

Breizh Info : And the prosecutor Natalia Poklonskaya, very popular and for whom they predict a grand political future?

Zakhar Prilepin : She’s not really on that level outside of Crimea.

Breizh Info : What do you think about Ukraine’s future?

Zakhar Prilepin : By sending Russia away and launching a murderous civil war in the East, the Ukrainian power thinks it will become the locomotive of progress. But, they are at the back of the train now, dependent on the good will of Trump. If that means that the United States is no longer concerned with supporting the power in Kiev, if he says it’s in the Russian zone of influence, they’re washed up.

Breizh Info : On this subject, what do you think about Trump’s election?

Zakhar Prilepin : The American public has affirmed with force that it is white, conservative, Christian, gun bearing, and it wants to address its internal problems instead of those in the world.

Breizh Info : That’s good news for Russia?

Zakhar Prilepin : More than the election of Clinton of course. But Trump, as a good American, will try to divide Russia and China, for example by giving Russia everything it wants on the condition that it doesn’t form a bloc with Beijing. Or by pressing where it hurts, that is to say on the hypothetical possibility that the Chinese invade the Russian far east.

Breizh Info : The neighboring Chinese overflow into the great Russian emptiness there. Do you think that could happen?

Zakhar Prilepin : Honestly, no. The arrival of the Chinese in the Russian far-east is not so massive, it’s even stabilized these last few years. On the contrary, the Chinese migrate in mass towards the South, so it’s rather Taiwan that has to worry about it.

Breizh Info : What is the future of the EU after Trump’s election?

Zakhar Prilepin : Trump is concentrated on the United States itself, and will disengage from supporting the EU. He will notably encourage the European countries to pay for their own defense. Without the influence and the commanding power of the United States and Great Britain, the EU will have much less influence in the future. But that, it’s above all Germany’s problem.

Interviewer: Louis-Benoît Greffe



Understand and Fight the Advent of Neo-Capitalism with Michel Clouscard – KÉVIN “L’IMPERTINENT” VICTOIRE – Le Comptoir – February 21st 2015


, , , , ,

Note: While the Institute for National Revolutionary Studies does not advocate total acceptance of Marxism, the critiques of Marxists such as Michel Clouscard remain powerful enough to augment our own struggle for national and social liberation from the society of globalized mass consumption. 
Michel Clouscard passed away on Febraury 21st 2009. The anniversary of his death is an excellent occasion to rediscover his thought, both original and faithful to Marxism, which remains stunningly timely.
Born in 1928 in Montpinier (Tarn), Michel Clouscard was the author of the most radical and complete critiques of capitalism at the end of the 20th century. This close associate of the Parti communiste français attempted to define the bases of a classless society, radically democratic, starting from the thought of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Friedrich Hegel and Karl Marx, holding that their respective beliefs registered themselves in the same line. The thinker from Tarn defined Rousseau as a precursor of democratic socialism, the founder of the moral concepts and modern definitions of egalitarianism and liberty. Opposed to the neo-Kantianism of Jean Paul Sartre, Jacques Lacan, Michel Foucault, Claude Lévi-Strauss or even Roland Barthes, who were fundamentally counter-revolutionary according to him, Clouscard reproached them for having distorted the notion and liberty, and would pose, from 1972, the bases of his critique of the new face of capitalism, which he would qualify as liberal-libertarian.
“Capitalism turned left on the political-cultural level and turned right on the economic-social level.”
Mai 68: Everything is permitted, but nothing is possible
If Clouscard already made a name for himself, thanks to his thesis, “ L’Être et le code” in 1972, aided by the direction of the famous Marxist sociologist Henri Lefebvre, it was in the following year that his thought revealed itself to the public with “Néo-fascisme et idéologie du désir.” In this pamphlet against “Freudo-Marxism” (among which he classed Gilles Deleuze and moreover Herbert Marcuse), he delivered an analysis – imperfect but revolutionary – of Mai 68 and its consequences for French society.
If the PCF – just like the CGT – supported the worker’s movement, the first social movement of the 20th century we recall, it had long despised the student’s Mai 68, which he qualified as “bourgeois” and guilty, according to him, of threatening the hegemony of the Party within the extreme left. But the movement was marked by contradictory inspirations – even if all were marked by the same hedonism – and a non-negligible part of the students, influenced by the ideas of Cornélius Castoriadis, Henri Lefebvre and Guy Debord, tried to revive the spirit of the Commune and combat the nascent society of the spectacle. Yet this “orginal sin” of Clouscard did not prevent him from drawing good conclusions about the consequences of what he named “the 1789 of the middle classes.”
According to him, Mai 68 was above all the revolution of the new educated middle classes that sought to become dominant within society. He saw there the culminating point of an era, which started with the Marshall Plan. By “aiding” the European countries, the Americans allowed the Old Continent to accede to the their consumerist model, which entered into conflict with the state capitalism of the epoch. A new market of desire was born, as well as a new middle class. According to the sociologist, the student movement marked the advent of the latter. He thus explained that it acted in a struggle contrasting three characters each symbolizing a different dominant class. A sort of role playing game between the “severe father (De Gaulle), the naughty child (Cohn-Bendit), the liberal debonair (Pompidou).”
For Clouscard, the student’s Mai 68 was “the cunning alliance of the liberal and the libertarian to liquidate the old order, which had to go.” Actually, if the president of the Republic of the epoch represented the traditional bourgeoisie, whose values served as a rampart against wild capitalism – without actually representing an anti-capitalist alternative – the same can’t be said for the two other contestants. The old Prime Minister, the ex-general directory of the Rothschild business bank, prefigures neoliberalism, that is to say inhumane capitalism that subjugates men by submitting them to the compulsive desire to consume. But this turn from traditional capitalism to liberal capitalism was curbed by the conservatism of Gaullism, which it had to destroy at any price. That’s when “Dany the red” intervenes, the (liberal) libertarian. The total liberalization of morals that he advocated permitted the emancipation of the French from their old values – certainly some were stifling – in order to make them submit to the ideology of mass consumption. This libertarianism – which has nothing much to do with authentic libertarianism – defends a liberalization of class consciousness to the profit of satisfying cravings. The seduction of capitalism could then attain its apogee and the consumerist illusion would seem unsurpassable. Mai 68 then announced splitting the cake between the three powers of the following consensus: social-democratic, liberal, and libertarian. To the first, they left administrative management, to the second economic management, and finally to the last those mores necessary for the advent of a market of desires. The consequence was the unprecedented subjugation in a society where everything seems permitted, but in reality nothing is possible.
“ ‘Libertarian’ social-democratic enjoyment has productivism, inflation, unemployment, etc, as a condition.”
Neo-Capitalism: Between Seduction, Desire, … and Repression!
The rest of Clouscard’s work is principally devoted to the analysis of the mutation of the consumer society put in place after Mai 68– sometimes resembling that of another ex-doctoral student of Henri Lefebvre, Jean Baudrillard. It notably represented by his major work, “ Le capitalisme de la séduction − Critique de la social-démocratie” (published in 1981, at the start of the Mitterrand era), as well as “De la modernité : Rousseau ou Sartre” (published in 1983, reissued in 2005 under the title “Critique du libéralisme libertaire, généalogie de la contre-révolution”) and in “Les Métamorphoses de la lutte des classes” (1996). According to the Marxist, “Capitalism turned left on the political-cultural level and turned right on the economic-social level.”
This combination permitted the creation of a “libertarian social-democracy”, that he also called “libertarian liberalism.” It’s a system of constant revolution: the old Marxist description of capitalism as perpetual movement which detests stability never was more relevant. The “new middle classes” played a fundamental role in this new mode of organizing production. Although it possessed neither capital nor the means of production, this part of the wage earning class was charged with the direction (on the cultural side) and the management (on the economic side) of libertarian liberalism.
While until now repression had permitted capitalism to put itself in place, it’s by seduction and the development of a new market of desire that capitalism really took off. Publicity and fashion became essential. The individual was taught to consume from a very young age and keep consuming in childhood, then again as an adult. A new falsely subversive mass culture – Clouscard spoke of “subsidized subversion” – was then created. It notably took form in rock – “the music of subversion and revolt” – which succeeded jazz, along with jeans, pinball, long hair, as well as drugs. According to him, this latter represents “the fuel of consumer society, even though its ideological image pretends otherwise.” In this context, sexual liberation rapidly mutated into “sexual liberalization” integrated into capitalism, which transformed women from womb to sex organ.
This apparent homogenization of everyone in society into consumers masks a still lively class struggle. The integration by consumption is actually accompanied by a differentiation in ways of life. Clouscard explains thus that “this egalitarianism of difference authorizes another system of hierarchies. While it pretends to surpass class hierarchies, it reinforces them by mundane hierarchies. At every moment, a sign means a barrier and a level. A cascade of differences, a cascade of contempt, a cascade of snobbery.” He also notes that this system is “permissive regarding the consumer and repressive regarding the producer,” which means that consumption is done for the benefit of the socially favored and to the detriment of the proletarian workers. The latter are actually kept in a state of constant desire, without being able to join into this mass consumption that society makes them dream about. The formula “everything is permitted, but nothing is possible” makes sense. But according to him, this “capitalism of seduction” is only transitory and for that reason he prophesied, since 1981, that: “crisis will reveal the deep nature of this system: austerity (the economic repression of the workers, essentially the working class) as a corollary, not only to maintain it, but to expand ‘libertarian’ social-democratic consumption. It’s during the full period of crisis that the ideology of computerization in the service of pleasantry is born. In the measure that austerity worsens, the revenues of the tourism, pleasure, leisure industries increase. They seem to be inversely correlated. ‘Libertarian’ social-democratic enjoyment has productivism, inflation, unemployment, etc, as a condition.”
“The state was the superstructural instance of capitalist repression. That’s why Marx denounces it. But today, with globalization, it’s totally the opposite. While the nation state could be the means of oppression of one class by another, it became the means to resist globalization. It’s a dialectical game.”
To Fight Against Capitalism and Resolve the Class Struggle
Yet Clouscard knew to surpass simple analysis in order to propose solutions as well. Astonishingly, for a Marxist, the defense of the nation state was part of his fight, without ever turning into mundane nationalism. On the subject, he places himself more on the side of Rousseau and Hegel than Marx. Like the first, he thought the state was the only legitimate organ to maintain the liberty and equality of the citizens. Like the second, he thought that the nation state is a historical construction “difficult to surpass”, without being “the end of history.” Ultimately, he thought that capitalism could only be subdued by the citizen’s social contract, which links all components of the economy. Since the Revolution of 1789, large advances have only been obtained by the nation state. So overcoming it today is not desirable. Liberal capitalism only expresses itself, in its modern form, through globalization and the European Union which destroys all room to economically maneuver. He thus explains in an interview to the Communist daily l’Humanité: “The state was the superstructural instance of capitalist repression. That’s why Marx denounces it. But today, with globalization, it’s totally the opposite. While the nation state could be the means of oppression of one class by another, it became the means to resist globalization. It’s a dialectical game.” That’s why Clouscard, understanding the danger of the single currency, engaged with the PCF against the treaty of Maastricht and for the defense of national sovereignty, the only defense of popular sovereignty.
The sociologist nevertheless desired a radical reform of the socialist state and advances some ideas in “Les Métamorphoses de la lutte des classes” and above all in “Refondation progressiste.” While capitalism organizes the deregulation of morality, Marxism contemplates socialist morality, that would not be repressive but engender responsibility. In order to counter libertarian liberalism and its permissiveness, Clouscard defends an ethic embodied in the moral production of the conditions of existence, christened the ethic of praxis. This, far from being a new moralism, bases itself on equilibrium between production and consumption, in order to make the relation between producers and consumers equitable.
To conclude, in order to resolve the contradictions posed by the class conflict, he proposes the creation of a “chamber of representatives of the working world” where the big options for society would be debated. This “parliament of the working collective” would have the goal of allowing for the democratic self management of the workers as a whole.
An intellectual far in advance of his time, Michel Clouscard was yet marginalized within his own camp, who preferred his rival Louis Althusser to him. To the point of leaving his legacy to be monopolized by the nationalist socialist Alain Soral, who he nevertheless insisted on disavowing him in his columns in l’Humanité before his death, notably explaining that he “had never designated him as the heir” and adding “to thus associate our names in an ordinary manner is akin to the misappropriation of funds.” If Clouscard, who ignored completely (even scorned) ecological problems or the so-called “minority” causes (feminism, anti-racism, etc), is not exempt from criticism, his teachings remain essential. He was actually the first to understand what – two decades after him – Luc Boltanski et Ève Chiapello would name “the new spirit of capitalism.” Perceiving in the rise of libertarian liberalism the advent of an educated and urbane middle class dominated by its desire and libido, the philosopher prefigures the literature of Houellebecq. So we we will remember above all that he understood how the liberalization of mores advocated by the petty bourgeoisie, without ignoring capitalism, joined the false freedom of consumption defended by the grand bourgeoisie.

Source: https://comptoir.org/2015/02/21/clouscard-et-la-volonte-de-refonder-le-communisme/

From Mao to Maurras – Jean-Philippe Chauvin – December 29th, 2009


, , , , ,

In 1975, somewhere in Paris, a rather unusual political event took place that would leave its mark on the minds of some of its participants: a public meeting favorable to the national independence of countries regrouping left wing Gaullists, neo-Maurrasian royalists of Nouvelle Action Française, and … Maoists! This meeting wasn’t repeated, but it also gave rise to reunions between militants of NAF and some ex-monarchists who had gone over to the “Chinese,” as they sometimes called the “Maoists”: thus the director of the paper “Lys Rouge” in the years 1970-71, Christian M, who had ended up in proletarian revolution and the cult of president Mao from popular monarchy and royalist revolution, was once again reunited, a bit confusedly, with his old “Fleur de Lys” comrades …

Today, apart from Alain Badiou, the Maoists have disappeared, at least politically, but their personal journeys continue to inspire seekers and the curious in politics. Such is the theme of the very interesting little book written by Jean Birnbaum entitled “les Maoccidents”: it is even more interesting as it mentions the royalists and above all the major figure of l’Action Française, Charles Maurras, many times! Elsewhere Gérard Leclerc had already devoted two articles in “Royaliste”, the bi-monthly of Nouvelle Action Royaliste, critical heir of Nouvelle Action Française. And of course we must note that the real title could have been “Towards Israel and Maurras, the road to Paradise of the French Maoists”

The journey of Benny Levy, charismatic director of the Gauche Prolétarienne (“the” Maoist intellectual movement of the 1970s), is well known: after having been the secretary of Sartre, he would soon become one of the greatest contemporary thinkers (if not the greatest) of Judaism. The rediscovery of his Jewish heritage, its wealth, its depth, marked a rupture with this pro-Palestinian Maoism starting from his shock from the tragedy of the Olympic games in Munich in 1972, which lead to the deaths of many Israeli athletes. It marked a return to Tradition and the roots of his people, both religious and historical in nature: was it not, all things being equal, a journey that Maurras undertook, like a number of his disciples, to the point that André Malraux wrote : “To go from anarchy to ‘Action française’ is not contradictory, but constructive.”

“Mao or Maurras?”: this question, or maybe we could say this dilemma, gave rise to a debate/ book between the Maoist Philippe Hamel and the royalist Patrice Sicard at the start of the 1970s, and so we can state that, beyond the visible oppositions and the brawls in the street (or rather campus) between the students of AF and the young Maoists, debate was actually possible and some similarities between the diagnoses and hopes of both were emerging. Elsewhere, there was, at the same time, passages from one camp to the other, and a few years later, “returns” to “mother’s house” for those who had once preferred reading “The Little Red Book” to “Inquiry on Monarchy”: Jean Birnbaum, in his book “Les Maoccidents,” mentions the case of Guy Lardreau, who in 1961 asked his high-school comrades to sport a black ribbon on the anniversary of Louis XVI’s death before becoming one of the most virulent militants of “ Gauche Prolétarienne.”

At the start of the 1970s, the encounter with the philosopher Maurice Clavel, a fervent Catholic and according to Birnbaum, “former Maurrasian and henceforth guardian angel of the Maoists”, seems determinant enough to explain the evolution or return (for Lardreau, for example) towards Maurras and “Counter-Revolution”: “Believing that both bore the same spirit, he presented the castaways of the Gauche prolétarienne, who he qualified as ‘Chouans,’ to a few young royalists who appeared as “leftists of the right” Truly the refusal of consumer society and individualism could bring together the partisans of Mao and those of royalism, still very strongly marked by the instructive figure of Maurras, the same person who had furnished the monarchists of the 20th century with a genuine doctrine founded on a school of thought that claimed to be the critical and modern heir of Joseph de Maistre and Louis de Bonald.

Maurice Clavel, celebrated for his famous cry “Messieurs Censors, good night!” one night in a televised debate, started a promising debate with Pierre Boutang, “spiritual son” (but “dissident” or “prodigal”, according to interpretation) of Maurras during the 1960s, a debate that would follow with the young “post-Maurrasian” monarchists of Nouvelle Action Française in the 70s. This was the same Clavel who asked the Maoists not to neglect the work of Maurras and recommended they meet with Boutang!

The advice of Clavel doubtlessly permitted the establishment of bridges between Mao and Maurras, to the point that some old Maoists regretted giving such a small place to the latter in contemporary thought: such as Christian Jambet, today a recognized specialist of Islam, and the philosopher Jean-Claude Milner… Doubtlessly it is the fact that Maurras challenged the same fundamentals of the society that came from the Revolution of 1789, its “human rightism” that negates provincial and communal diversity, the “death of the Father” that it caused (politically solidified by the execution of the king in January 1793), etc. that attracted the Maoists who only espoused the Maoist cause through the will to break with a society shaped by consumerist individualism, forgetful of the history of those who had preceded them, and this merchant world where thought became a nearly superfluous “detail,” this “non-revolutionary” world that apes revolution in order to sterilize it.

Pierre Chaunu said that Maurras ended, thought his doctrine and the practice of his polemic, the “salamalecs” (Translator’s notes: exaggerated and hypocritical politeness) in regards to “1789” and the “policy of the blank slate,” and that he broke with the same fundamentals of the “great disestablishment”: it’s doubtlessly this rupture that could attract Maoists themselves desirous of breaking with “The Enlightenment West”:

“The ultimate target calls itself the Modern West. This West, coming from the Enlightenment, which pretends to free the individual from the constraints of tradition, is in opposition to another, respectful of its heritage, and which affirms the primacy of the cultural community. To be Western here, is not to belong to the same ethnicity, even less the same ‘race’, it is to share in the symbols, embodied in a language, to recognize the spiritual events that this civilization is built from: Greeks miracles, Roman law, Biblical ethics, the Christian revolution, even liberal thought…

So admit that we cannot escape its heritage, accept the all mightiness of the origin, the absolute supremacy of birth: ‘Our native society is imposed on us … We only have the ability to accept it, revolt against it, maybe even flee it without being able to essentially bypass it’, wrote Maurras. ‘You could very well become a sociologist, a revolutionary, a reform Jew, you will change nothing about this innate fact, fundamental, initially and finally, from the beginning to the end: you were born.’ warned Benny Levy from his side, whose texts are now read with a benevolent attention by certain heirs of Action française, and in particular the students of Pierre Boutang.”


Source: http://nouvelle-chouannerie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=892:de-mao-a-maurras-partie-1&catid=31:general&Itemid=46


Introduction to the dossier “Africa – Europe” from issue 76 of the magazine Rébellion – Rébellion – October 16th 2016



The world has profoundly changed in 15 years. We have left the hegemonic situation the United States inherited from the fall of the Eastern Bloc. The “unipolar” world, completely dominated by the American superpower and its servants is collapsing to make way for a multipolar world. The reemergence of “new” actors on the international scene (Russia, China, Iran) reshuffles the cards.

Two civilizational areas were dispossessed of their sovereignty, to certain different degrees: Europe and Africa. If the European states still conserve a facade of independence and the means to assure the relative maintenance of a state of law, Europe risks being the next victim of the policy of chaos required by capitalism in order to reinforce itself. The radicalization of neo-liberal hegemony implies government by crisis. Shattering the protective national framework of states is the first step in a new strategy of tension and shock which will have the consequence of creating a permanent instability suitable to deliver our continent to the voracity of the globalist oligarchy.

Africa was the laboratory for this policy. Since decolonization, everything was done to prevent the emergence of a true sovereignty in the countries of the dark continent. From Patrice Lumumba (killed in 1961) to Thomas Sankara (killed in 1987), they have assassinated the heroes of a properly African alternative in order to replace them with imperialist lackeys. The multinationals have pillaged the wealth of Africa and its thousand year old traditional culture has disappeared under the bulldozer of liberal globalization.

In the Clutches of Neo-Liberalism

Some will find that the link between the two situations is exaggerated. Comparisons are misleading, but do they know that the chains of debt which imprison the countries of Southern Europe, in particular Greece (1), were firstly set up in the countries of the Third World?

The IMF and the WTO enslaved African countries mercilessly. They perfected their methods there. Those who frightfully observe the start of land purchases in the French countryside by China and soon by the other great economic powers, should look at the situation in Africa … The destruction of African peasant agriculture for the profit of export plantations (European or Chinese products sold in the biggest market in black Africa, the Sandaga market in Dakar, are less expensive than local products), has overturned the identitarian structure of African countries, as industrial agriculture destroyed our peasantry.

The African migratory wave towards Europe is directly linked to this logic. Leaving the countryside to join the metropolises, the African migrants can only pour into Europe. Nothing is going to prevent that. Immigration destroys the countries of departure as much as the destination countries, only producing chaos and frustration. The frantic promotion of the globalized sub-cultural model (consumption, hi-tech, music, so-called “social” networks, etc …) is not foreign to the phenomenon of deracination whether in Europe or in Africa.

Europe – Africa: Same Fight!

Confronted with the same attacks, Europe and Africa have common interests. If they want to become independent and sovereign again, they must lead the same unified and revolutionary struggle of liberation on the scale of their respective continent.

Europeans and Africans must discard the burden that globalist “right thinking” imposes on them. We must leave behind blame and victimization. The executioners of today are the globalist oligarchy.

Post-colonial resentment by Africans or by Europeans regarding mass immigration, should not prevent us from seeing the convergence of interests. There are no contentions between the popular classes on both sides. The French peasants barely freed from the serfdom of the Ancien Régime had no benefit from the enslavement of their counterparts by the merchants of Bordeaux. The mine workers of the North of France had nothing to do with colonialism. The troops that they sent to shoot strikers or crush African kingdoms were well commissioned by the Republic (2).

Immigrant workers did not disembark by magic into our factories, and family reunification owes nothing to the knowledge of marabouts. On the contrary, it’s the employers who produced this demand from thin air. They pursue it today as it serves the interests of the dominant class just like imperialist domination in African countries.

Finding Its Own Way

We will certainly be treated as “Third Worldists” or simpletons, but we do not see the clash of civilizations that they try to sell us as an inevitability. We bet on intelligence and the convergence of interests. Obviously the race towards barbarism that we know on a global scale and the weakness of the forces that try to stop it both in Europe and in Africa leaves little place for optimism. But we want to sew seeds in the spirit that could grow in due time.

A difference must be made between solidarity with peoples in the struggle against globalist domination and the drift we find the in the “extremes” which we call “the sickness of substitute struggles.” Incapable of politically influencing their countries of origin, some individuals fantasize of exotic revolutions. This resignation before the demanding task of seriously leading the combat in their country, causes these people to discharge their frustrations on virtual territory from Nicaragua to Palestine, nationalist Ukraine to Donbass … Whatever camp they choose, they reveal themselves incapable of bringing concrete support to the cause that they are supposed to defend and now rant on the net. If we want to support the cause of the peoples, we must fight in Europe in order to be the masters of our destiny and become capable of supporting other peoples.

The European and African peoples must fight the same system on their respective continent. A policy of friendship whose reason and sentiment should be a basis of our external actions. They will benefit from knowing and sharing their reciprocal experiences in this respect. By shedding outdated ideological illusions, they will unmask their false allies (bien pensants, useful idiots of globalization, drawing room revolutionaries …) and will find the way towards the national and social liberation of their continent.


1) Furthermore, we must insist on the role of Germany, which which has crushed Greece and welcomed 1 million “refugees”, a good number of which passed through Greece.

2) The “right”, once hostile to colonization (“I’ve lost two sitsters [Alsace and Lorraine], and you offer me twenty domestic servants”; Paul Déroulède to Jules Ferry, 1881), opened the way to reverse colonization of the French homeland for economic reasons (docile labor). As for the”left,” which had historically extolled the merits of colonization (“Superior races have a right over inferior races”; Jules Ferry, July 28th 1885), it changed tack and started – oh the joys of repentance! – to flatter everything that came from elsewhere (culture enrichement, etc.). The responsibility of one or the other in the creeping rot of the country is unquestionable.

1793-2011, from sans-culottes to Troisième voie, the History of French Revolutionary Nationalism – Christian Bouchet

Tonight I am going to deal with a somewhat novel, to my knowledge, theme, namely, the history of the last 250 years surrounding a French political current: revolutionary nationalism.

I thank Serge Ayoub for having given me the honor of appearing before this conference to speak on a movement to which I belonged for thirty five years. I hope to bring you some new information. That said, it is necessary that you are aware I can only scratch the surface of my subject in the time allotted to me for this speech. My dilemma was to find a third way, we never escape it, between inflicting an inaudible and interminable thesis on you and contenting myself to name drop without permitting you to place the cited groups in perspective. Moreover, pardon my oratorical weaknesses, I am a man of writing and taking the public stage is neither my habit nor my strong point.

Before addressing the history of revolutionary nationalism it is suitable to analyze precisely what is hidden behind this term. We can do this using three definitions: the first considers revolutionary nationalism as a European version of the national liberation movements in the Third World, the second sees it as a nationalist left, finally the third as an ideology where the political extremes join.

The idea of revolutionary nationalism as a European version of the national liberation movements of Third World countries is seductive, it was developed by François Duprat particularly in his writings in the 1970s. That corresponds well to geopolitical reality: Europe occupied, starting from 1945, by the USA and the USSR, then by the USA alone. On the other hand, where this definition fails, by its overly restrictive aspect: firstly it only applies to a recent historical period, then it doesn’t permit the understanding of the ideological specificity of the NR movement.

Then we can go a bit further, and complete what we just said by affirming that this current is a nationalist left. The idea is defended in Europe by a certain number of groups that have taken this definition as a name, I knew at least some examples in Italy – where the great NR daily Rinascita presents itself as the organ of the nationalist left – and in Spain.

In the first half of the first decade of the 21st century, Thomas Ferrier, a young historian from Nancy published many theoretical writings on this theme.

For him, there only exists six political currents, three on the left and three on the right. Namely: the social democratic left, the internationalist left, the nationalist left, the liberal democratic right, the conservative right, and the nationalist right.

Starting from these premises, he developed the following theme: “the social democratic left and the liberal democratic right join at the center. The nationalist right is halfway between the nationalist left and the conservative right. The nationalist left is halfway between the nationalist right and the internationalist left.”

To simplify, the nationalist left has the economic program of the internationalist left and the political program of the nationalist right. In contrast to the international socialism of the extreme left, the nationalist left proposes national socialism.

He then proposed a certain number of divides permitting the differentiation between the nationalist left and the nationalist right: “The proletarian / bourgeois divide: the nationalist right defends the bourgeoisie while the nationalist left defends the model of the worker (Ernst Jünger) or the proletarian (Filippo Corridoni), associated with the cult of heroes (Carlyle, Nietzsche)”

The secular / Christian divide: the nationalist right is naturally Christian or mostly agrees with Christianity, the nationalist left is often atheist and generally secular.

The 1789/ anti-1789 divide: the nationalist left recognizes itself as the heir of the French Revolution while the nationalist right is hostile to 1789.

The republican / monarchist divide: the nationalist left is republican and the nationalist right is monarchist, even if it pretends to accept the republican principle.

The democratic / aristocratic power divide: the nationalist left is for democracy while the nationalist right is quite opposed.

The socialism / liberalism divide: the nationalist left is socialist, the nationalist right is anti-socialist and economically liberal.

The Europe / Anti-Europe divide: the nationalist left is for European unification, even for the concept of the European nation; the nationalist right is hostile to any European construction, at most defending the oxymoronic concept of the Europe of Nations.

That has something seductive enough as well, but which is not totally satisfactory as much historically as ideologically, in my opinion. Actually, revolutionary nationalism from its historical origins, we will see, is both the left and the right and it defends ideas that are often syntheses coming from the right and the left. Thus declaring it as “nationalist left” has, in my eyes, a deleterious effect regarding our specificity.

Hence it’s the third definition I propose to you. In order to understand it, we must abandon the idea of a linear representation of the political world where the extremes extend to infinity in favor of a circular representation where a left and right exist facing the center and the two centers face them: one hard and the other soft. A French author, Fabrice Bouthillon, explained it well in a recent text where he wrote: “In order to revive what was undone by the French Revolution which had multiplied across the whole of Europe after 1789, attempts at compromise between the right and left constituted centrisms … There exists two types of centrism, either by subtraction, or addition of extremes.” The model of the second, which is actually a radical centrism, combining the extreme right and the extreme left, is what we name revolutionary nationalism: a current that assimilates the notions of the right and left.

The idea is not recent, we already find it among the German NR of the 1930s that presented itself as “ links leute von recht” and among Oswald Mosley, after the Second World War, to only cite two examples. The university academic Jean-Pierre Faye had already developed in the 1970s, a somewhat similar analysis holding that the NR were those who found themselves between poles of a magnet, taking the traditional form of a horseshoe.

Thomas Ferrier, who I just quoted, when he spoke of the nationalist left, also proposed to us, a genealogical tree thus conceived: “The most nationalists revolutionaries in 1789, the most nationalist Communards (the Blanquistes, Louis Rossel), the tradition of French national socialism of the 19th century: Charles Fourier, Joseph Proudhon, Auguste Blanqui, Benoît Malon, Albert Regnard, Georges Sorel, Jules Guesde, Jean Allemane, Jean Jaurès, young Maurice Barrès, the French national socialism of the 1920s and 1930s: Georges Valois, Marcel Déat, the Belgian Henri de Man, Gaston Bergery, the French national socialism of the resistance (Charles de Gaulle in a certain way, Philippe Barrès) and collaboration (Charles Spinasse, the paper Le Rouge et le bleu, Pierre Drieu la Rochelle, Marcel Déat again, etc.), post-war national socialism, sometimes becoming European socialism: Jean-Pierre Chevènement of Patrie et progrès, people like Jean Thiriart or François Duprat.”

There we have the essentials that I am going to develop afterwards, with the reservation that Thomas Ferrier did not perceive, or did not want to perceive, the influence of certain currents purely on the right in the genesis of the NR current, which I’m going to stress a bit.

Firstly, we focus on our distant ancestors, on those whose historical action inspired our engagement whether yesterday or today: the sans-culottes, the “montagne blanche”, and radical Bonapartism.

In these three cases, it is suitable to note before going further that the groups concerned were essentially populist, even proletarian. It’s important and suitable to note the persistence of this phenomenon summarized later by Jean Jaurès in his famous phrase: “For he who has nothing, the nation is his only good.” Moreover, these three currents were essentially favorable to larger democracy in their claims, even towards a sort of class struggle because they perfectly identified the bourgeois’ membership among their enemies.

During the Revolution of 1789, the sans-culottes had as their slogan: “Vive la Nation!” Why? Because the Great Revolution had transformed the kingdom of France into the French nation. The subjects then became a people of citizens and the appearance of the nation was not an abstract principle but a practical policy permitting the elaboration of rules of law defending the collective interest in the face of individual interests.

Under the Convention, the constitution of June 24th 1793 (or year I) is doubtlessly a model for us as it seeks to establish a true popular sovereignty thanks to frequent elections and universal suffrage, the imperative mandate, the possibility for the citizens to intervene in legislative processes and all power attributed to an annually elected legislative body. But what is more interesting for us, is the decree of August 23rd 1793 concerning the Army of year II. We find there the theme of the armed people and total mobilization, the basis of the entire NR vision of society. I cite this famous decree: “From this moment until the moment the enemy has been chased from the territory of the Republic, all French people are on permanent requisition for service of the army. Young men will go into combat, married men will forge arms and transport supplies; women will make tents and serve in hospitals; children will cut up old clothes; the elderly will appear in public places to excite the courage of the warriors, preaching hate for kings and the unity of the Republic.”

Furthermore, it is not insignificant, in my eyes, that certain Jacobin generals like Moreau and, to a lesser degree, Pichegru, participated in plots with radical royalists like Cadoudal under the Consulate. There we have the start of an oxymoronic policy that continued with the “ montagne blanche” – a current also called “Carolo-Republican” – a legitimist royalist movement appearing the in South of France following the July Revolution of 1830.

Although it is rather fascinating, it is known very little in our milieus though it would have a non-negligible influence in its time, to the extent that Karl Marx mentioned it in his Communist Manifesto.

Without lingering on the details, we can give it three characteristics:

1 – It’s a popular movement (small farmers, artisans, laborers) opposed to the Louis-Phillip era bourgeoisie that socially and politically oppressed its members.

2 – It’s a democratic movement that invokes universal suffrage as the sole means of restoring legitimate monarchy.

3 – It’s a movement that surpasses political divides because it makes numerous alliances with the most radical republicans to impede the bourgeois pro-Louis-Phillip candidates or moderate republicans.

As for Radical Bonapartism, they would not progressively rally to the camp of moderates and conservatives after 1870 but would continue the political combat for an imperial restoration. There as well, as with the “montagne blanche,” it demonstrates a hyper-democratization by declaring itself in favor of plebiscites and referendums, going as far as adopting self-declared names synthesizing its orientation with an appeal to the people because it successively appointed Plebiscite Committees and Parties.

Also, it is important to reveal that it was the first nationalist political structure that has no discontinuity between them and us because the organizations I just cited existed until the Second World War and they would give numerous militants to the nationalist movements of the 1930s.

When I spoke of the Sans-culottes or the Montagne Blanche, we have a parentage of desire or reference, there we have a real ideological parentage because the personalities that could have influenced us were themselves influenced by the ideas of these parties or their press organs like L’Appel au peuple or L’Autorité.

Because I speak of direct parentage, now we arrive at the first groups we can really consider as NR. They are those that Zev Sternhell defined as the revolutionary right. I recommend you read his book which exists in paperback edition. You will find there, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, many of the themes we still defend actually appeared then.

Marc Crapez, another author who dealt with this period, prefers, rightly, the term national socialism to that of revolutionary right and he holds that it’s a current directly derived from the French Revolution. He dates its first manifestation to the end of the Second Empire with a renewal of Hébertisme (the name comes from Jacques-René Hébert, leader of the “les exagérés” faction who were the most extreme and nationalist montagnards), which was succeeded by the Boulangistes, the Blanquistes, and the young syndicalists of Biétry. In this movement, quite vast and often confusing, we must say a word about the short but significant experience that summarizes this political family well: that of La Cocarde. This daily was published from March 1888 to 1905. From September 1894 to March 1895, it was a “national socialist” organ under the direction of Maurice Barrès. La Cocarde illustrated, at the turn of the century, the multiple convergences between the extreme right and the extreme left (criticism of representative democracy and moderate republicanism, activism, nationalism, revanchism, etc). La Cocarde was anti-parliamentarian and xenophobic, but it spoke with esteem for Jean Jaurès and with emotion for the French Revolution. Barrès, during the period where he directed the paper, attempted to reconcile nationalism and socialism. He wanted to organize labor, abolish the proletariat, and reduce the omnipotence of the state by decentralization.

In the heritage of this national socialism we find Gustave Hervé. He came from the extreme left and in 1912, he undertook an evolution towards patriotism of the heart and mind. In July 1914, he became one of the most virulent socialists in favor of national defense.

He even transformed the title of his press organ La Guerre sociale to La Victoire, in January 1916.

In 1919, Gustave Hervé created a little National Socialist Party, where he was joined by figures of the pre-war extreme left like Alexandre Zévaès, a former Guesdiste deputy, Jean Allemane, leader of one of the socialist parties in the period 1890-1902, and Emile Tissier (he was also an ex-Marxist Guesdiste).

During the March on Rome (1922), Hervé saluted his “valiant comrade Mussolini.” His National Socialist Party became, in 1925, the Party of the Authoritarian Republic then the National Socialist Milita in 1932 of which he gave leadership to a certain Marcel Bucard who left it, at the end of 1933, to found Francisme.

In a tradition more marked by the right, and a bit more tardily, we must take into account, in 1912, the experience of Georges Valois’ Cercle Proudhon which emerged from anarchism to enter into Action française.

Valois serves us as a bridge to the 1930s. You are aware that he founded, in 1925, le Faisceau with a daily, Le Nouveau Siècle. Le Faisceau was created on the Mussolinian model, but it was “neither anti-socialist, nor anti-communist, nor anti-Semitic.”

Denouncing the impotence of parliamentarianism, the weakness of the old parties, the “lacking peace,” le Faisceau had the goal of creating a true “national and popular state” beyond the parties and classes. Also, emphasis was put on the defense of worker’s interests and the organization of justice in social life.

When Valois dissolved le Faisceau in March 1928, a party of his close associates displayed their disagreement with him and created the Revolutionary Fascist Party with Philippe Lamour and Pierre Winter. We find them shortly after among the leaders of what was named “the non-conformists of the 1930s,” created with the architect Le Corbusier, of journals like Plans and Prélude, working in concert with small groups like Ordre nouveau, le Mouvement travailliste français, le Front social or le Front national syndicaliste. It’s incontestable that the NR are the their direct heirs, 1000 times more than the leagues.

Next we come to the somber period of the Second World War. Not ignoring that National Socialism had, in Germany, severely repressed the NR current whose principle leaders knew exile or camps.

In France, a part of our great ancestors would choose, at one moment or another, resistance within France rather than London. Some lost their lives like Jean Arthuys or Georges Valois. After the war we certainly find them in the Rassemblement du Peuple Français (Translator’s Note: A Gaullist Party), while others like Alexandre Marc, would continue, via La Fédération, then in various circles, an ideological work closer to that of the NR and often influencing the principal turn towards European nationalism.

Another part including the NR would claim a possibilist, even collaborationist attitude motivated by reflections that are hardly comprehensible today.

Doubtlessly a part of what they call the collaborationist left, in particular Marcel Déat, had very interesting ideological bases and merits dispassionate study. We must also speak of the Mouvement social révolutionnaire where Abellio militated as well as the Mouvement nationaliste-révolutionnaire formed by Trotskyites who rallied to the national revolution.

I just cited Marcel Déat and the partisans of Leon Trotsky. In a surprising manner, it’s a disciple of the second, René Binet, and a nephew of the first, Charles Luca, who maintained the flame of revolutionary nationalism in the years 1940-1960.

René Binet began to militate in the 1930s with the Communist Youth of Havre. Expelled in 1935, he oriented towards the 4th International and participated in the formation of the Parti communiste internationaliste in March 1936, where he was a member of the central committee. He also wrote in the Trotskyite journal La Vérité and he directed the local journal of the PCI, Le Prolétaire du Havre. During the war, he became a collaborator. A thesis has been advanced that he firstly infiltrated a left wing collaborationist group for the Trotskyite movement before being won over to the ideas of the new order. Whatever the case, after the war, in 1946, he created the Parti républicain d’unité populaire (PRUP), regrouping about a hundred people, for the most part former Trotskyites or PCF militants – including Maurice Plais, former communist assistant to the mayor of Clamart – which fused with the Forces françaises révolutionnaires in 1947 and became the Mouvement socialiste d’unité française in 1948, which was outlawed the following year. He was the French contact of Francis Parker Yockey and he contributed to the creation of the European Social Movement, with Maurice Bardèche. He died accidentally in 1957.

At this time, he had already been replaced by Charles Luca. He created a series of organizations that were successively dissolved: in 1947, the Commandos de Saint-Ex, dissolved by the minister of the interior Jules Moch in November 1949 for disturbing the public order. They were immediately reconstituted, under the name of Mouvement national Citadelle, which took the name Parti socialiste français in October 1953, then two years later, Phalange française.

Significantly, this group would be the French brother party of the Deutsche Soziale Union of Otto Strasser.

It would be dissolved in May 1958 by a decree from the Pflimlin government. The organization would be immediately reconstituted under the name Mouvement populaire français (a significant name as the international organization of the Strasserites was then named the European Popular Movement) which would be dissolved again in summer 1960. Then Charles Luca left first class leadership and he died twelves years later.

The time then came for Jean Thiriart, also a former communist who passed to collaboration.

Condemned to three years in prison from the “Liberation,” Thiriart only politically resurfaced in 1960, by participating, during the decolonization of the Congo, in the foundation of the Comité d’Action and de Défense des Belges d’Afrique which became a few weeks later the Mouvement d’Action Civique. In a short time Jean Thiriart transformed this Poujadiste groupuscule into an effective revolutionary structure which – believing that the seizure of power by the OAS in France would likely be a great springboard for European revolution – gave support to the secret army.

Simultaneously, a meeting was organized in Venice on March 4th 1962. Participating in it, besides Thiriart who represented the MAC and Belgium, were the Italian Social Movement for Italy, the Socialist Reich Party for Germany, and the Union Movement of Oswald Mosley for Great Britain. In a common declaration, these organizations declared that they wanted to found a “A National European Party, centered on the idea of European unity, which does not accept satellization of Western Europe by the USA and does not reject reunification with the territories of the East, from Poland to Bulgaria, through Hungary.” But the European National Party would only have an extremely brief existence, the nationalism of the Italians and Germans rapidly broke up their pro-European engagements.

That added to the end of the OAS caused Thiriart to reflect, who concluded that the only solution was in the creation from scratch of a Revolutionary European Party, – the “Historical Party”- and in a common front with parties or countries opposed to the order of Yalta.

Culminating with the work started since the end of 1961, the MAC transformed into Jeune Europe in January 1963, a European organization that embedded itself in Austria, Germany, Spain, France, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Switzerland, and which take the name le Parti communautaire européen (PCE) in 1965.

The originality of Jeune Europe resides in its ideology, European National- Communitarianism, which Thiriart presented as an “elitist and European socialism,” non-bureaucratic and centered by European nationalism. Challenging the romantic notion of the nation, inherited from the 19th century, which fits into ethnic, linguistic, or religious determinism, Thiriart considered the concept of the nation as a community of destiny like that described by José Ortega y Gasset, as more consequential, that is to say the concept of the nation as dynamism, as movement, as becoming. Without totally rejecting the common past, he thought that “this past is nothing in regards to the gigantic common future… What makes the reality and viability of the Nation, it’s unity of historical destiny.” Defining himself as a “Jacobin de la très grande Europe,” he wanted to construct a unitary nation and spoke in favor of a “fusion-state,” centralized and transnational, the political, juridical, and spiritual heir of the Roman empire, which would give all its inhabitants European omni-citizenship. He would summarize in 1989: “The principal axis of my political-historic thought is the unitary, centralized state, the political state, and not the racial state, the remembered state, the historical state, the religious state.”


Although implanted in six countries, this militant structure never counted more than 5,000 members across the whole of Europe. Of this total, two thirds were concentrated in Italy. In France, because of its support for the OAS, Jeune Europe would be outlawed, which constrained the movement to remain semi-clandestine and would explain its negligible influence, it’s effective membership never surpassed more than 200 adherents.

Nevertheless, the new movement was very strongly structured, it insisted on ideological formation in true cadre schools from October 1965, Thiriart had elaborated a “physics of politics” founded on the writings of Machiavelli, Gustave Le Bon, Sergei Chakhotin, Carl Schmitt, Julien Freund, and Raymond Aron. He also tried to put in place a central syndicate, les Syndicats communautaires européens. Furthermore, Jeune Europe wished to found European Revolutionary Brigades to start the armed struggle against the American occupier, and searched for external support. Thus contacts were made with the People’s Republic of China, Yugoslavia, and Romania, and even with Iraq, Egypt, and the Palestinian authority.

The press of the organization, first Jeune Europe, then La Nation Européenne, had a certain audience and counted collaborators among which we can cite the writer Pierre Gripari, the Alpes-Maritimes deputy Francis Palermo, the Syrian ambassador to Brussels Selim El Yafi, that of Iraq to Paris Nather El Omari, as well as Tran Haoi Nam, head of the Viet Cong mission to Algiers, and more personalities such as the American Black leader Stokely Carmichael, the coordinator of the executive secretariat of the FLN Cherif Belkacem, the commandant Si Larbi and Djambil Mendimred, both directors of the Algerian FLN, and the predecessor of Arafat at the head of the PLO, Ahmed Choukeri, granted interviews to it without difficulty. As for General Peron, in exile in Madrid, he would declare “I regularly read La Nation Européenne and I entirely share its ideas. Not only that which concerns Europe but the world.”

If Jean Thiriart was recognized as a revolutionary to be reckoned with – he met Chou En-Lai in 1966 and Nasser in 1968, and was forbidden to visit in five European countries – and if the military support of his militants in the Anti-Zionist combat was incontestable – the first European who would fall, arms in hand, in struggle against Zionism, Roger Coudroy, was a member of Jeune Europe – his allies remained remained prudent and did not accord the desired financial and material aid to Jeune Europe. Furthermore after the crises of decolonization, Europe benefited from a decade of economic prosperity with made the survival of a revolutionary movement very difficult. In 1969, Jean Thiriart ended the experience of Jeune Europe. The date was quite strange and showed that hadn’t grasped the importance of the events of May at all and the influence they would have. He disappeared from the field of battle until the 1980s where he would reappear and militate for a time with us.

Revolutionary nationalism would then know a period of very low tide where the only active organizations were Organisation lutte du peuple of Yves Bataille and, on the theoretical level, Les Cahiers du CDPU of Michel Schneider.

For the OLP, I believe we were never more than 30 members, but, with the team of Cahiers, we marked the history of the French NR movement as its upholders and ideological smugglers in a difficult period. The thought of Thiriart was maintained and it’s through this channel that the theses of Italian groups of the time, including those of Freda, penetrated into France.

Likewise and a little bit later, François Duprat, starting from 1973, would convince a certain number of militants, by studying the examples of failures and success in foreign countries, that factionalism was useless and it was preferable to act as an ideological and strategic stimulus within a large electoral party.

His position broke with the express wish of creating Leninist type NR parties during the last 25 years.

It’s this strategic turn that explains the oscillation which would mark the future history of NR groups until our day and explains its principal splits. An oscillation between the will to create an autonomous party and that of practicing a certain entryism. Thus GNR and Unité radicale would choose the form of tendency more or less organized within the Front National, and Mouvement nationaliste-révolutionnaire, Troisième voie and Nouvelle résistance would choose that of an autonomous movement. When a certain number of Troisième voie cadres wanted to change strategy, they knew it would lead to a split, and it would be the same for Nouvelle résistance and Unité radicale.

So from 1973 until our day we would see five organizations that would be born from one another.

Not everyone had equal value and incontestably there would be a movement of decline in organizations that would touch the movement from the end of the 1990s. The rise of the Front would attract all the valuable cadres that were then situated in the groupuscules, where there was very sharp decline in quality both on the organizational and intellectual level.

Starting from 1973, Duprat launched Les Cahiers européens, which gave important support to the first presidential campaign of Jean-Marie Le Pen in 1974. In June, the leader of the FN addressed them with a clear message; there he affirmed: “The place for revolutionary nationalists is withing the FN, which authorizes double membership and respects the ideological choices of its adherents.” Consequently in September 1974, Duprat and his partisans joined the FN, in November they created Le National, the party’s organ.
Within the FN, Duprat was charged with the Electoral Commission, that is to say he was responsible for strategic and propaganda questions: in sum, he ran the machine. For Alain Rollat (in Les Hommes de l’extrême droite, Calmann-Lévy, 1985.) “François Duprat appeared as the real number two in the party. He was a remarkable organizer along with the éminence grise Jean-Marie Le Pen. The FN owes its internal discipline to him.”

Simultaneously, François Duprat developed his tendency. In order to do this, he created the Groupes nationalistes-révolutionnaires in 1976, whose influence within the party would soon be important: Alain Renault, the right hand of Duprat, became assistant secretary general of the Front and in the legislative elections of 1978 a third of the candidates came from the GNR.

But everything did not go smoothly, and at the 4th congress of FN (Bagnolet, 1976), certain nationalist elements did not hide their hostility to the NR. However, the political importance of François Duprat made them untouchable. When he was assassinated, everything changed, and it was the purge! It was lead by Michel Collinot and Jean-Pierre Stirbois. At the FN congress in November 1978, Alain Renault tried to convince the audience that “no purge was directed against the true revolutionary nationalists, and that they continue to have their place within the Front,” but no one believed him. The NR militants either were expelled or resigned; they then participated with what remained of Organisation lutte du peuple and the Groupes d’action jeunesse in the creation of the Mouvement nationaliste-révolutionnaire that would be directed by Gilles Malliarakis. Mouvement nationaliste-révolutionnaire transformed into Troisième voie in 1985 and broke up between pro and anti-Le Pen factions in 1991. The latter created Nouvelle résistance.
Troisième voie knew some great successes. It published a quality monthly sold at newsstands, I remember a meeting where we filled la Mutualité (Translator’s note: a large conference hall in Paris), etc. What put it at a disadvantage and finally lead to its disappearance was the rise of the Front National which consumed nearly all of its space, but above all the personality of its leader Jean-Gilles Malliarakis who prevented any teamwork and was the cause of departure for all its quality cadres one after the other.

Nouvelle résistance would be the last purely NR experience in France. I was in it, I was even the deus ex machina and I confess that we were far into political hysteria and nationalist leftism. We also did non-negligible theoretical work, we published a weekly and put a printed newspaper in newsstands. But we were also totally out of step with the movement which explains how Troisième voie began with 175 members and finished with about thirty a few years later. Hence the necessity of creating Unité radicale and ostensibly modifying the ultimate bottom line in order to keep our heads above water.

This latter groups was presented in an entirely caricatured fashion by the media and the Maxime Brunerie affair didn’t help things.

In reality, we were very far from what has been told and the organizational model that inspired us was the work of the Trotskyites of Militant (Translator’s note: British Trotskyite entryist group) within Labor, it goes to show!
In fact, it was the split of the FN and then the wrong choice made that was the cause our final failure.
Before concluding, I would like to touch upon a theme without which my subject would not be complete: the desire that has always animated the NR since the beginning, to lead a fight on the continental scale.

You may say that, in a certain measure, it’s normal for a current professing great European nationalism. That’s right, but what we must take into account, is that the will to create an NR international was manifest even before this component of NR thought actually appeared. Doubtlessly because it’s the only nationalist current where we fight more for a conception of man that includes a connection with the nation rather than defending a nation independently of the idea it conveys.

Anyway. Starting from Biétry, there was an attempt to create a European structure with strong links to the Union of the Russian People among others. In the 1930s, we found the staff of the journal Plans et Ordre nouveau trying again to create European coordination and such they entered into contact with Ramiro Ledesma Ramos, Harro Schulze-Boysen and Otto Strasser. After the Second World War we would successively see the European Liberation Front of Francis Parker Yockey, the European Popular Movement of Otto Strasser, Jeune Europe of Jean Thiriart, the Liaison Committee of European Revolutionaries, the Groupe du 12 mars, and a new European Liberation Front.

I don’t believe I’m revealing a state secret by telling you that Serge actually worked to develop the relations of Troisième voie on the European level.
So what must we think of these international relations? Is it an international of mailboxes as some say ironically or does it go further?

Having been one of the leaders of the European Liberation Front, I can tell you that the political interest is immense. Thus we can have a mutual exchange of ideas and themes of combat there, the possibility of discovering new fields of action and new strategies, of enriching ideological experiences lead elsewhere, and also leading campaigns on the European level against the common enemy.

Of course, European combat is not the panacea, but it would be an error to neglect it.

Now I come to the conclusion.

Since the beginning of my exposition, I have spoken to you about groupuscules. For 35 full years, I was a member of a certain number of them and I directed others, so I’m well placed to know exactly what it is, not being fooled about their number of militants and their real influence.
So you are entitled to wonder about the real interest of this commitment. I’ve done it too, on numerous occasions: why all the expense of time and money, why so many human sacrifices, ultimately, only to labor in vain?
To tell you the truth. It’s been a very long time since I abandoned the hope of organizational success. On the other hand, I have always been convinced by the righteousness of ideas and their possible influence. Thus, I have often cited Gilles Martinet, who spent a part of his life in groupuscules of the hard left: “I never believed in the future of small organizations situated on the margins of large historical formations. And yet, I myself participated in the creation and direction of many of them. What I believed is that their existence and their combat could lead to changes withing the big parties.”

The role that the French NR had within the nationalist movement was to serve as an ideological laboratory and as carriers of ideas. That’s what Nicolas Lebourg, a hostile but honest university academic, understood well in his thesis “Les nationalistes-révolutionnaires en mouvements (1962-2002)” writing (p. 704): “Even within the competitive political system, groupuscules find their importance in their work as ‘watchman’ and furnishing concepts and discursive elements to populist structures that have, for their part, access to media space” and explaining that the revolutionary nationalists furnished the Front National with many of its essential ideas including anti-Americanism and anti-immigration, and according to its own terms, “thus armed it verbally and ideologically.” A substantial action which, I hope, is not finished.
But in order to play this role of ideological laboratory and carrier of ideas, it is still necessary to have a structure, a press, activists, etc. It’s what justifies the small groupuscules with which I participated and it’s what always justifies them in the eyes of some.

Source: http://www.voxnr.com/cc/d_france/EFpEAupAFlQaOaYpeX.shtml