In the nine years since its founding in 2016, La France Insoumise (LFI) has become the leading left formation in France, with its current parliamentary representation at 71, ahead of the traditional parties of the left, the Socialist Party and Communist Party. The personality most identified with it is Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who has run for president three times, the last time in 2022, when he gathered 21.9 per cent of the votes, finishing third after second-placer Marine Le Pen of National Rally and Emmanuel Macron. La France Insoumise describes its orientation as democratic socialist and ecosocialist.

The following is a composite interview. When he visited Paris in July 2025, Walden Bello interviewed some of the leaders of LFI, including Nadege Abomangoli, Vice President of the National Assembly; Aurelie Trouve, Chairwoman of the Economic Affairs Committee of the Assembly; and Members of Parliament Arnaud Le Gall, Aurelien Tache, and Aurelien Saintoul. This was followed in September 2025 by an email interview with LFI leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon (JLM).

The crisis of Macronism

WB: Can you give your assessment of the current political situation in France?

LFI: In terms of the strategic situation, we are at the end of Macronism. The Macronists are very divided, and in their desperation, they’re allying with the far right.

Let’s begin by pointing out that last year, when the National Rally won the European Parliament elections, Macron was willing to make a deal with them. He was going to appoint a prime minister from the National Rally. That was the plan.

That did not pull through. But even if it did not, the reality is that Macronism has already absorbed much of the ideology and slogans of the far right. The Macronists are in an alliance with the far right in the current government.

The Republicans, the traditional right-wing party, are already, more than ever, positioned alongside the far right. The new head of this party, a man named Bruno Retailleau, is now minister of the interior, and therefore of the police. In a meeting, he said, “Down with the veil.” As you know, this is a slogan of the far right. Also, as you probably know, during the colonial war in Algeria, the French colonial community also shouted, “Down with the veil,” targeting Muslim women. So this is something very old, but at the same time very worrisome given the current situation. Islamophobia represents a very real threat insofar as it provides the ideological glue of all the right-wing forces in our country.

Popular protests and the left

WB: What are the key challenges facing the left at this point?

JLM: The capitalists are getting behind the far right. Do you know why? Because there is intense social mobilization against the decisions stemming from the neoliberal program. There is a pre-revolutionary atmosphere in France, according to the admission of analysts who are themselves favorable to those in power. In fact, all over the world, for many years now, there have been revolutionary situations. We call these events “citizen revolutions.” In my book Now the People, I try to analyze them, including the conditions that produce them. This situation is what has worried Macron and the establishment.

In France, there was a movement of the yellow jackets. In the beginning, the traditional left did not support them. They said the yellow jackets were fascists. It was only ten days after it began that the left, the trade unions, and the alter-globalization movement made a declaration saying we support them. What was happening was that a new line of conflict was emerging: not left versus right, but the oligarchy versus the people.

As you know, there were mass protests that took place in 2005 and 2023. The character of the two protests was different. Those in 2005 took place in the suburbs of big cities. Those in 2023 were in smaller cities as well. They were very young people. Some sociologists said the 2005 and 2023 protests had the same causes, but we think the 2023 protests were different. People participating in them were very young, and they felt very deeply what they were against, including the right of the police to kill them, the license to kill, especially young Arab men.

There was no spokesperson, but it was clear what it was against. It was a reaction to an extrajudicial execution. And the polarization was sharper in 2023, partly because of social media. There was this outpouring of anger from the right in reaction to the protests, with some people expressing that it was right for the police to kill these young Arab and Black men.

Capitalism and racism

WB: Were the protests in 2023 linked as well to economic issues?

LFI: Yes, they were, and we pointed out that the events were caused by neoliberal policies.

These were people’s responses to neoliberalism's impact on their concrete existence. All the other parties called them riots. We did not. The term used was very important for us. Those who are the victims of racism must also be seen as the victims of capitalism. They are the people who are also totally exploited by capitalism. So, contrary to the position of the head of the Communist Party and some in the Socialist Party, you cannot separate the fight against racism from the fight against capitalism.

We need to stress this, that racism is not just a moral issue. It is linked to economics. For instance, they say that we only have that much wealth to share, and sharing it with migrants will disadvantage our own people. So, this serves to divide people. You start with migrants, then you say the poor white people must also be excluded, and so on.

So the Macronists are trying to do this, to normalize this division promoted by the far right. They find it desirable to frame it this way. That’s what they’ve started to do in Mayotte, to destroy the rights of migrants, and after Mayotte, they’ll bring this idea to France. So, Mayotte and other overseas territories of France are serving as laboratories. But there are also such efforts in many places, like the suburbs around Marseilles, where the National Rally, Marine Le Pen’s party, exercises some influence.

They are creating many states of exception. For instance, there is now a bill, put forward by the National Rally, to put any arrested foreigner in jail for at least 200 days if he has been previously convicted and sentenced. That is a clear violation of basic rights: you cannot put anyone in jail if he has not been convicted and sentenced. 85 per cent of new laws in one year are sponsored or supported by the National Rally.

We’d like to add that we’re also trying to create a new anti-racism. One problem we have faced is that in the past, anti-racism was weaponized by the Socialists when they were in power to go after their enemies. So, now people are very, very suspicious of anti-racism, especially if those espousing it are leaders who are white men with a political agenda.

We’re also combating new forms of racism, like the allegation that non-white people are infiltrating society and government to get to high positions, and they’re doing it through special advantages provided by the government. This is strange because in the past, their criticism was that Muslims don’t want to integrate. But now, when some non-white people get to high positions, like Comrade Nadege, who’s Vice President of the National Assembly, they say it’s because of special benefits they enjoy.

WB: So, from what I can gather from what you’re saying, you don’t think other sections of the left are sympathetic with or really understand the plight of the migrants?

LFI: Yes, but this is not new for the communist leaders because 40 years ago, they already said there was a problem with immigrants. But our differences with the Communist Party go beyond just the labelling of protests as riots, to different visions of society. It comes down to who is part of the people, and this is something that evolves with time. The Communist Party is dead because it is stuck with an obsolete view of who the ‘revolutionary people’ are. The working class has evolved so that Arabs and other non-white communities are now the majority in many sectors of the working class. You can see this in the hospitals, where even the majority of doctors are not white. So, it is very important to fight against racism, because if you don’t, you allow the people and the working class to be divided.

The divided left

WB. Shifting to a related topic, can you tell me what the state of the left is in France?

LFI: You can say that without France Insoumise, there would no longer be a viable left in France. There are, of course, other parties, like the Socialist Party. But the Socialist Party does not confront the many challenges in the country. They do not fight racism as strongly as they should. Specifically, the Socialist Party is divided. They have no agenda, they have no program. And the only question for them is to know how to win elected seats and whether they should ally with LFI or not.

It is a difficult situation, but we must move forward even if we are accused of divisiveness. In terms of the strategic situation, we confront Macronism, which is very divided because it’s the end of Macronism, and there’s the far right. Of course, as in many other countries, you have the media, which is dominated by billionaires who very much favor a victory of the far right.

WB: So, when you are talking about the Socialists, are you saying they do not want an alliance with LFI?

LFI: The Socialists are divided into two groups. One group does not want an alliance with us under any circumstances. The other group does not want an alliance, but would accept it in certain situations. However, they are focused on getting support from voters who support Macron in the next elections, and since they think an alliance would alienate these voters, these people don’t want an alliance with us at the moment. But they do not ask themselves whether voters would continue to vote for them in the second round of the elections. Their strategy is typical of the desire to place the people back under the authority of the petty bourgeoisie out of fear of the far right.

For us, the Socialists’ pursuit of the Macronist voters is an illusion, since the supporters of Macron are mainly conservatives and would not support socialists or social democrats, even if some of the media lump the Socialists and the Macronists in the same bloc. But given their project, the Socialists try their best to distinguish themselves from us. For instance, when it comes to the situation in Gaza, they still don’t want to use the word “genocide.” Then they say we are supporting Hamas and terrorism.

What more can the far right ask for? It’s a gift to them. The established right party, the Republicans, has, in fact, asked for a parliamentary inquiry into our alleged links to terrorist groups. We are facing a true demonization. They have this label for us, calling us “Islamo-Marxist.” These people use these labels to frighten people and to divide them in the face of the crisis of neoliberalism. But for now, they are the most discredited when it comes to public opinion. Their opportunism disgusts ordinary people.

The divided center and the divided right

WB: There will be presidential elections in 2027 and general elections in 2029. Do you think the left will be able to unite to effectively contest these elections?

LFI: In other circumstances, things would be favorable for the left. The Macronists are very divided. If you look at those who voted for Macron in 2017 and those who did in 2023, you see a big difference. In 2017, his votes came mainly from older, centrist voters. In 2023, they came from younger voters who can be described not so much as centrists but as people interested in modernizing conservatism. You no longer have anyone who can unite these two groups. Macron is prohibited by law from running again. It is now clear that Macronism was a one-shot phenomenon. Most Macronists are now for allying with the far right, as we said earlier.

As for the right and far right, they are also divided. There’s Bruno Retailleau, the leader of the Republicans, the traditional conservative party. Then there’s the National Rally of Marine Le Pen. Because she has been convicted of embezzlement along with other leaders of her party, she has been banned from running for public office. Her protégé, Jordan Bardella, will be running in her stead. But Bardella is not credible; he has a low cultural level, is very young, quite lazy, and is very inexperienced compared to Retailleau, who has served in many positions and who’s been spouting the same rhetoric for the last 40 years. Between Bardella and Retailleau, Big Capital would likely favor Retailleau.

As we said earlier, in other circumstances, the situation would be favorable to the left. We’re open to talking with the Socialists, but the Socialists are pursuing the Macronists, which, as we said earlier, is an illusion, since the Macronists would rather side with the far right. The Greens, Socialists, and Communists are talking about an electoral alliance among themselves, and the only thing that unites them is to avoid talking to France Insoumise. But given the fact that each of them is just interested in increasing their number of seats, which can only come at the expense of the others, these talks won’t get very far.

Collectivism: La France Insoumise’s program and vision

WB: Assuming you, Comrade Mélenchon, run for president in 2027, what would be the key elements of your program?

JLM: Yes, there will be an Insoumise candidacy. We will have a candidate to carry our program “L’Avenir en commun” (The Future in Common). The program comes from society itself. Associations, trade unions, collectives, scientists. These are 831 measures to build a New France, breaking with the capitalist order. These measures are constantly updated, costed, and detailed in program booklets. They propose to start from the needs of society itself to bring forth a new people.

To break with neoliberal mistreatment and move away from productivism, we will establish the “green rule”: not to take from nature more than it is capable of regenerating by itself. We propose to protect the commons and what we call the rights of the species. The right to night, to silence, to healthy food, to breathe clean air, and to drink water that does not poison. These measures are at the heart of our program to profoundly transform society and build harmony among human beings and with nature. They also have a concrete application to guide the economy, replacing market logics with those of ecological planning. This method will make it possible to implement major projects in housing, energy, agriculture, and industry. Thousands of jobs will be created.

“L’Avenir en commun”, our program, is also a break with the government’s action plan and the presidential monarchy. That is why we will move to the 6th Republic, with measures allowing popular intervention, such as the recall referendum for any elected official or the citizens’ initiative referendum. In recent years, our country has been marked by powerful expressions of the authoritarianism of the 5th Republic, as was the case with the raising of the retirement age to 64, without a vote in the National Assembly and despite a historic popular mobilization in our country’s history. We will restore retirement at 60, so that everyone can regain control over their free time.

WB: Comrade Mélenchon, can you describe the kind of socialism that you propose for France?

JLM: I prefer to speak of collectivism. It is not only about resolving the social question, but also about addressing the question of the general human interest and the rights of living beings, which form a systemic collective.

We observe the emergence of a new world: an urban people, organized in networks. This new France already exists in itself, its people defined by their conflict of interest with the oligarchy. The latter has appropriated the collective networks on which daily life depends. We believe this world is coming to an end, and that only two outcomes are possible: collectivism or the law of the strongest.

Take the case of climate change, which is inevitable and irreversible. How do we rebound? How do we propose collectivist solutions? The choice of individualism, of the law of the strongest, means letting thousands of people be poisoned by forever chemicals, just to keep the money cycle turning. It means failing to plan to prevent mega-fires from burning everything, because the budgets for Canadair planes have been cut.

The law of the strongest is expressed when there is no longer a logic of collective progress in France. When one in two French people is obese or overweight, when infant mortality has been rising for 10 years, and when one in four mothers raises her children alone. The fortunes of billionaires have doubled since Macron became president.

Collectivism is not a utopia but a necessity. Understanding the moment means taking reality with us, making ourselves masters of the situation. The dead end of the capitalist system can be good news, an opportunity to paralyze it, to push it to its limits. Each and every one of us is responsible for the outcome we will give to this rupture.