When NPA-Révolutionnaires Announced it ‘Fused the Unfusable’
Is The NPA-R Now Just Lutte Ouvrière with a Glow-Up?
The French revolutionary left has a problem it can't solve: how to build power without compromising principles. In December 2022, this tension finally shattered the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste (NPA), France's most significant attempt at revolutionary unity since 1968. The split into NPA-Anticapitalistes (NPA-A) and NPA-Révolutionnaires (NPA-R) wasn't just another organizational fracture—it represents two fundamentally opposed answers to the central strategic question facing today's left: engage broadly and risk co-optation, or maintain purity and risk irrelevance. In August 2025, the NPA-R held an international meeting to give new context to its political evolution.
Saturday's Rally: A New Synthesis Emerges
At the closing rally of the international meeting "Meeting international: construire un pôle des révolutionnaires" in August 2025, Gaël Quirante from NPA-Révolutionnaires made a striking declaration that challenges conventional understanding of the French revolutionary left's strategic orientations. Standing before comrades from Germany, Greece, Spain, and the United States, he announced that NPA-R had achieved something unprecedented: "a fusion between two communist revolutionary traditions. Two traditions that come from the tradition of Lutte Ouvrière and the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire."
This bold claim suggests that the December 2022 split of France's Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste (NPA) into NPA-Anticapitalistes and NPA-Révolutionnaires represents far more than a simple organizational division. Rather than NPA-R merely moving from the LCR's "open" model toward LO's "closed" approach, the international meeting revealed an ambitious attempt to transcend the historical dichotomy that has defined French revolutionary politics since 1968.
Reframing the Open-Closed Paradigm
To understand the significance of Gaël's assertion, we must first examine what constitutes "open" versus "closed" Marxism in the French context. The Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire (LCR) historically embodied what Ernest Mandel called "open Marxism"—a strategic orientation that prioritized broad anti-capitalist unity, tactical flexibility, and engagement with diverse social movements. This approach, influenced by Mandel's non-deterministic, anti-positivist Marxism, sought to avoid sectarian isolation by building alliances even with reformist forces when tactical circumstances demanded it.
Lutte Ouvrière (LO), by contrast, represented "closed Marxism"—an approach that prioritized ideological coherence, organizational independence from all other political forces, and concentrated intervention within the traditional working class, particularly in large industrial workplaces. LO's model emphasized what they termed "proletarian tendency," focusing on patient workplace implantation rather than broader social movement engagement.
NPA-Anticapitalistes continues this "open" tradition through its participation in broad electoral alliances like the Nouveau Front Populaire, its engagement with diverse social movements, and its willingness to compromise programmatically for wider anti-capitalist unity. This current maintains the LCR's historical commitment to tactical flexibility even when it requires alliances with reformist parties.
Gaël's Revolutionary Synthesis: Fusing the Unfusable?
Against this historical backdrop, Gaël's claim to have achieved a "fusion" of LO and LCR traditions appears audacious, even paradoxical. How does one synthesize the seemingly incompatible approaches of "open" and "closed" Marxism? The international meeting provides crucial insights into NPA-R's strategic thinking.
The Fusion Project: Gaël's conception of fusion does not represent a simple compromise between LCR and LO positions, but rather an attempt to extract the revolutionary essence of both traditions while discarding their respective limitations. From the LCR tradition, NPA-R claims to preserve the commitment to international revolutionary coordination and the recognition that revolutionary consciousness develops through struggle across multiple terrains. From the LO tradition, they adopt the insistence on strict class independence from bourgeois and reformist forces and the emphasis on workplace-based revolutionary organization.
Principled Unity Over Tactical Compromise: The fusion manifests in what might be called "principled unity"—a strategic orientation that maintains absolute independence from reformist and bourgeois parties while actively promoting coordination among authentic revolutionary currents. During the meeting, Gaël emphasized NPA-R's approach: "Defend the revolutionary pole as we did during the European elections... saying we will add together all the results of revolutionary organizations - the Workers' Party, Lutte Ouvrière and NPA-R. Continue to say this in the legislative elections by doing better, by saying 'Vote where we are not present for the comrades of Lutte Ouvrière.'"
This represents neither the LCR's historical willingness to alliance with institutional left parties nor LO's traditional reluctance to coordinate even with other revolutionary organizations. Instead, NPA-R advocates for maximum unity among revolutionary forces while maintaining rigid separation from all forms of reformist politics.
International Revolutionary Coordination: Perhaps most significantly, the fusion incorporates an international dimension largely absent from LO's traditionally more nationalist focus. The meeting brought together revolutionary organizations from five countries, emphasizing the construction of an international revolutionary pole. This international orientation distinguishes NPA-R's approach from LO's historical concentration on workplace intervention within France, while avoiding the LCR's tendency toward broad international solidarity that sometimes included reformist forces.
Proximity to LCR or LO? The Question of Strategic Genealogy
The critical question becomes: in this attempted fusion, does NPA-R remain closer to the LCR tradition or does it gravitate toward LO's approach? The evidence from the international meeting suggests a complex answer that defies easy categorization.
Elements Closer to LO: NPA-R's absolute rejection of alliances with reformist parties clearly aligns with LO's position. Gaël's emphatic statement about their "central disagreement" with institutional left organizations—"that they instill the idea that one could be happy, without exploitation, without oppression, by cohabiting with the bosses who exploit you every day"—echoes LO's long-standing critique of class collaboration. Additionally, NPA-R's emphasis on workplace implantation and "the implantation of communist and revolutionary groups on the workplace" reflects LO's historical priorities.
Elements Closer to LCR: However, NPA-R's international orientation, its active promotion of revolutionary unity, and its engagement with diverse forms of struggle (including solidarity with Palestine, anti-racist organizing, and support for migrant workers) demonstrate continuity with LCR traditions. The meeting's international character and emphasis on building global revolutionary coordination represents an expansion of the LCR's international approach rather than LO's more national focus.
The Synthetic Element: Most importantly, NPA-R's strategic innovation lies in its attempt to combine LO's principled independence with LCR's unitary approach—but only among revolutionary forces. This represents a qualitative departure from both historical models. Where the LCR sought unity even with reformist forces and LO avoided unity even with other revolutionaries, NPA-R advocates for unity among revolutionaries combined with absolute independence from reformism: a move away from traditional responses in the tradition of the United Front.
The Theoretical Innovation: Beyond False Choices
From the perspective of the Trotskyist tradition exemplified by Ernest Mandel and Michael Löwy, NPA-R's fusion project represents an interesting theoretical innovation. Rather than accepting the false choice between reformist compromise (the "open" risk) or sectarian isolation (the "closed" risk), NPA-R attempts to construct what might be called a "selectively open" model—open to revolutionary coordination but closed to reformist contamination.
Mandel's United Front Strategy Revisited: Ernest Mandel emphasized the need for tactical flexibility combined with strategic clarity. NPA-R's approach can be understood as an attempt to apply this principle specifically to relationships among revolutionary forces while maintaining strategic inflexibility toward reformist parties.
Löwy's Revolutionary Humanism: Michael Löwy's emphasis on revolutionary humanism and international solidarity finds expression in NPA-R's international orientation and its comprehensive approach to various forms of oppression. The meeting's discussions of Palestine solidarity, anti-racist organizing, and feminist struggle demonstrate continuity with this tradition while maintaining strict class independence.
The Question of Revolutionary Leadership: The fusion project ultimately addresses a fundamental question within Trotskyist theory: how to construct revolutionary leadership that can provide principled guidance without falling into sectarian isolation. NPA-R's answer appears to be the construction of an international revolutionary pole that combines ideological coherence with tactical coordination among authentic revolutionary forces.
NPA-Anticapitalistes: Defending the "Open" Space
The NPA-Anticapitalistes current, led by figures such as Philippe Poutou and Olivier Besancenot, represents the direct continuation of the LCR's strategic legacy. This tendency maintains what can be characterized as an "open" revolutionary politics—one that prioritizes broad anti-capitalist unity over programmatic purity and seeks to engage with the widest possible spectrum of social and political forces.
This orientation manifests itself in several key areas:
Tactical Alliances and Electoral Strategy: The clearest expression of this "open" approach was NPA-Anticapitalistes' decision to participate in the Nouveau Front Populaire during the 2024 legislative elections. As Poutou articulated, the objective was to "prevent the far right from coming to power" and to "rebuild a truly combative left" with a "radical" program. This willingness to enter alliances with reformist parties—even "without conditions"—represents a continuation of the LCR's historical approach of seeking practical unity where possible while maintaining revolutionary perspectives.
Engagement with Diverse Social Movements: Following the LCR tradition, NPA-Anticapitalistes advocates for broader engagement with various social movements beyond traditional industrial workers, including feminist, ecological, anti-racist movements, and struggles of the unemployed and undocumented migrants. This inclusive approach characterizes what we might term the "open" political space—seeking influence and connection across a wide spectrum of societal struggles rather than limiting intervention to specifically working-class terrain.
Organizational Flexibility: The "open" model embraces organizational forms that can accommodate diverse political tendencies and tactical approaches, prioritizing the construction of a "broad party" of anti-capitalists capable of uniting different militant traditions.
NPA-Révolutionnaires: Movement Toward the "Closed" Model
In stark contrast, NPA-Révolutionnaires has adopted positions that demonstrate a clear trajectory toward the "closed" model historically embodied by Lutte Ouvrière. This shift represents not merely a tactical disagreement but a fundamental reorientation of revolutionary strategy—from the LCR's historically "open" approach toward LO's traditionally "closed" conception of party building.
Commitment to Class Independence: NPA-Révolutionnaires has embraced LO's strict policy of political independence from reformist forces, viewing broad alliances as "preparing new political traps for the workers." Their opposition to the Nouveau Front Populaire stems from a historical analysis of the failures of left governments, such as the Mitterrand administration in 1981, which they characterize as having "betrayed" workers and facilitated the rise of the far-right.
Pursuit of Unity with Lutte Ouvrière: Perhaps most significantly, NPA-Révolutionnaires actively seeks dialogue and proposes unity with LO, viewing themselves and LO as "different fractions of a same and future Communist and Revolutionary Party." They explicitly invite LO to their debates and summer meetings, acknowledging LO's "most political proximity"—a remarkable reversal from the LCR's historical criticism of LO's "sectarianism."
Emphasis on Workplace Implantation and Cadre Formation: Echoing LO's "ouvrièriste" tendencies, this faction focuses on building a truly revolutionary party rooted in working-class struggles, with emphasis on workplace implantation and cadre training. This approach prioritizes what LO has historically termed "proletarian tendency" with intervention within individual enterprises rather than broader union or social movement policies.
Ideological Coherence Over Tactical Flexibility: The movement toward the "closed" model involves prioritizing internal ideological coherence and a specific vision of revolutionary party-building over wider, potentially compromising alliances. This represents a shift from an "open" and expansive political space to one that is more "closed" and ideologically purist.
The Historical Context: LCR Versus LO
To understand the significance of this split, we must situate it within the broader historical relationship between the LCR and LO traditions. The LCR, following the approach developed by Ernest Mandel and the Fourth International, consistently advocated for what Alain Krivine characterized as being "at once unitary, even with reformists, and radical in anti-capitalism and internationalism." This approach sought to avoid "sectarian isolation" and actively connect with the working class through broad unity initiatives.
LO, by contrast, maintained what the LCR often criticized as an "economistic" and "localist" intervention, reluctant toward alliances and appearing "more mystical than political." LO's approach emphasized strict organizational independence and focused intervention within the traditional working class, particularly in large industrial workplaces.
The LCR's criticism of LO extended to questions of internal functioning, noting LO's lack of public congress texts, absence of recognized tendencies, and a system that fostered "dogmatism" rather than open democratic debate. These criticisms reflected fundamentally different conceptions of revolutionary organization—the LCR favoring organizational openness and tactical flexibility, LO prioritizing ideological coherence and organizational discipline.
The Contemporary Realignment
The current split within the NPA represents a fascinating realignment of these historical tendencies. Rather than simply reproducing the LCR-LO division, we see one current (NPA-Anticapitalistes) deepening its commitment to the "open" model while another (NPA-Révolutionnaires) actively moves toward convergence with the "closed" approach.
This realignment reflects broader questions facing revolutionary organizations in the contemporary period: How to maintain revolutionary principles while engaging with mass movements? How to balance organizational independence with tactical flexibility? How to build revolutionary consciousness in a period marked by the decline of traditional working-class organizations and the rise of diverse social movements?
NPA-Révolutionnaires' movement toward the LO model suggests a response that prioritizes ideological clarity and organizational independence over tactical flexibility. Their shared opposition to "campist" positions in international conflicts (such as Ukraine) and their emphasis on uncompromising class independence represents an attempt to rebuild revolutionary politics on the basis of principled positions rather than opportunistic alliances.
NPA-Anticapitalistes' maintenance of the "open" approach reflects a different assessment—one that sees the current period as requiring maximum unity among anti-capitalist forces to confront both the rise of the far-right and the ongoing crisis of capitalism. Their willingness to participate in the Nouveau Front Populaire represents a tactical calculation that broad unity, even with reformist forces, is necessary to prevent reaction and create space for revolutionary politics.
Theoretical Implications
From the perspective of the Trotskyist tradition exemplified by Ernest Mandel, this split raises fundamental questions about revolutionary strategy in the current period. Mandel's approach to revolutionary politics emphasized the need for tactical flexibility combined with strategic clarity—the ability to engage in united front tactics while maintaining revolutionary perspectives and organizational independence.
The NPA split suggests different interpretations of how to apply these principles in contemporary conditions. NPA-Révolutionnaires appears to emphasize the "organizational independence" aspect, viewing broad alliances as fundamentally compromising revolutionary principles. NPA-Anticapitalistes emphasizes the "tactical flexibility" dimension, viewing engagement with reformist forces as necessary to maintain political relevance and influence.
This division reflects broader theoretical questions within the Trotskyist tradition about the relationship between revolutionary organizations and mass movements, the nature of transitional demands, and the construction of revolutionary leadership in periods of defensive struggle.
Conclusion: The Dialectics of Open and Closed Politics
The split within the NPA ultimately illuminates the ongoing tension between "open" and "closed" conceptions of revolutionary politics—a tension that has characterized the French far-left since the emergence of these organizations in the post-1968 period.
NPA-Anticapitalistes' maintenance of the "open" model reflects a commitment to engaging with the broadest possible anti-capitalist constituency, even at the cost of programmatic compromise. This approach assumes that revolutionary consciousness develops through struggle and that revolutionary organizations must therefore engage with movements as they exist rather than as revolutionaries might wish them to be.
NPA-Révolutionnaires' movement toward the "closed" model represents a different assessment—one that prioritizes the construction of a theoretically coherent revolutionary organization capable of providing clear leadership in periods of crisis. This approach assumes that revolutionary consciousness requires clear theoretical foundations and that tactical compromises ultimately undermine revolutionary potential.
The convergence between NPA-Révolutionnaires and Lutte Ouvrière represents more than tactical alignment—it suggests a fundamental reorientation of French Trotskyism toward a model that prioritizes organizational independence and ideological coherence over tactical flexibility and broad engagement.
This realignment occurs at a moment of significant crisis for the European left, marked by the rise of far-right movements, the exhaustion of social democratic politics, and the emergence of new forms of struggle and organization. The ultimate test of these competing approaches will be their capacity to build revolutionary consciousness and organization in these challenging conditions.
The split within the NPA thus represents not merely an organizational division but a fundamental debate about the nature of revolutionary politics in the contemporary period—a debate that extends far beyond France and speaks to the strategic challenges facing revolutionary organizations throughout the capitalist world.