L'Humanité in English
Translation of selective papers from the french daily newspaper l'Humanité
decorHome > Politics > We deserve better than windows!
 

EditorialWorldPoliticsEconomySocietyCultureScience & TechnologySportInternational Communist and Labor Press"Tribune libre"Comment and OpinionBlogsLinks
About Pierre Laurent, read also
decorThe logic of the "Friendly Amendments", compared with the logic illustrated in the case of Olivier Dartigolles with his "Hostile Amendments". There are two opposing approaches to amendments! decorAndré Chassaigne: "We must stop the Spiral of Effacement of the PCF decorCongress. The PCF Enters the Heart of the Debate decorCan we stop the decline of the PCF? decorFor a 21st century Communist Party manifesto decorFor itsupcoming 38th convention, the PCF puts all options on the table
Politics

ORIGINAL FRENCH ARTICLE: http://lepcf.fr/Nous-meritons-mieux...

by National Council of 2 and 3 June 2018

We deserve better than windows!

Speech by Marie-Chrsitine Burricand

Translated Thursday 14 June 2018, by Marie-Christine Burricand

National Council of 2 and 3 June 2018
We deserve better than windows! Speech by Marie-Chrsitine Burricand
Monday 4 June 2018

I have read carefully the common core proposal with regard to two essential questions: for whom is it written, beyond the Communists, what does it reveal about the CPF? Does it respond to the double challenge of the congress: to come out of it together and strengthened and for that to carry out an in-depth assessment enabling us to decide whether or not we should change strategy.

On the first question, the text fails to address the social and political fracture, the millions of citizens who consider that politics and its institutions can no longer do anything for them.

On the second question, the text prefers to merge the debates rather than underline the different alternatives, leaving many elements for reflection in the implicit, excluded from the important debates necessary.

The rapporteur tells us that we must work in theoretically, I can only agree, but we must also specify the meaning of what we want to work on!

We said in a contribution that three points seemed essential to us.

The evaluation: it is not central in the text, it is very limited in time. The responsibility for the failure of the Left Front is transferred to Mélenchon, our enfeeblement is underestimated.

We do not question the relevance of the Left Front, about the fact that we went to get Mélenchon and somehow set him in the saddle, we water down the consequences of not having presented a presidential candidate twice.
Talking about stronger parliamentary groups is a sham with lost votes.
Martigues Convention remains untouchable!

Marxism: the reference is not explicit, that cannot be fortuitous.

The national existence and visibility of the CPF: few concrete proposals, especially concerning the presidential election where we do not put ourselves in a position to present a candidate.

As for the other issues on which we want the debate to begin, in particular the European Union, they are not present.

The text therefore does not allow the necessary strategic debate to open, a few windows will not change anything, because it is made so that everything can continue as before! Let’s open the doors to a real debate!


Follow site activity RSS 2.0 | Site Map | Translators’ zone | SPIP