Magazine publishes response to letter

The magazine Frustration has published a response to a letter written by Pablo Pillaud-Vivien, editor-in-chief of Regards, in which he questioned the political legitimacy of the use of violence. Roger Martelli, a historian and editor-in-chief of Regards, provided a response to this response.

Martelli's background and political identity

Martelli stated he has spent forty years teaching in the suburbs, primarily in very popular areas, and identified himself as a child of May 1968. He was involved in strikes and street protests but did not participate in barricades or transition from a Mao jacket to a Rotary club. He described himself as a communist, having been a member of the Communist Party for forty years but no longer being a party member, though he remains a communist.

Martelli's views on communist terminology

Martelli acknowledged the term "comrades" but noted he does not overuse it or extend it to the entire world. He expressed that while he has nothing against the raised fists of the proletariat, he has always been struck by the fact that they prove nothing except a very masculine symbol. He also pointed out that during the time of the Popular Front, it was the socialist Léon Blum who raised his fist.

Martelli's definition of his political stance

Martelli identified himself as a communist since 1968 because he is neither a socialist nor an extreme leftist. He does not consider "reformists" and "leftists" as enemies and does not believe in adjusting capitalism or declaring its extinction. He prefers a concerted overcoming of capitalism without forgetting the final goal of its extinction or the contradictions that hinder its overcoming.

Martelli's perspective on violence in history

He acknowledged that violence has been inherent to the development of human history and can be necessary, but warned that when one resorts to it, the risk is always there of it turning against the ideal for which one is committed. He referenced the 20th century's origins in 1914, noting that the extreme violence resulting from it has weighed on the subsequent course of human history, revolution and counter-revolution.

Martelli on the consequences of historical violence

Martelli stated that this initial violence produced the fascisms and legitimized Stalinism. He argued that failing to put the necessary brakes on its expansion from the start, the Bolsheviks who came to power found themselves caught in a gear that is too easy to blame solely on Stalin. He noted that the Bolsheviks thought they "took" the state but were in fact taken by it.

Martelli's reflection on historical movements

He said he once rejected "leftists" with virulence but eventually understood that the necessary criticism of their excesses caused one to forget what prompted them. He believed the PCF was right to reject "leftism" but wrong to make it a bogeyman without understanding what motivated it. He argued that the heirs of Marx were right to criticize those of Bakounine but wrong to forget what was prescient in the radical anti-statism of historical anarchism.

Martelli on the legacy of the Bolshevik split

Martelli concluded that the split that separated the Bolshevik family after the death of Lenin was one of the dramas of the 20th century. He advocated for a "pole of radicalism" in the middle of the 1990s but always thought that radicalism was only valid if combined with concern for the majority, without which no transformation is possible—neither partial reform nor systemic rupture.

Martelli's caution on the metaphor of war

Martelli stated that he believes history has been that of the struggle of places and classes but is wary of the easy metaphor that slips from struggle to war, from adversary to enemy. He warned that violence reproduces itself and, even when one manages to curb it, it leaves the traces of a culture of war, from the vanguards and leaders at the head of the armies.

Martelli's warning on the role of violence today

He argued that today, violence creates the concrete possibility of the worst, whether it is the orchestrated violence of the state or the violence of those who think they can use it against it. He emphasized that nothing would be worse than to get used to the idea that the great mobilizations are cannibalized by acts that feed fear when there is first and foremost a need for hope.

Martelli's vision for countering the far right

Martelli concluded that the peaceful and potentially majority gathering, backed by an emancipatory project, is the only way to curb the progress of the far right. He warned that suggesting that, in a blocked situation, violence can be propulsive is a mistake. The left, which must fight against the temptation of repressive solutions and authoritarianism, cannot fall into this trap.