During the first French Revolution, it became com­pul­sory to call each human being « citoyen » or « citoyenne ». A ser­vant was no more obli­ged to say « Monsieur » or « Madame » to his or her noble employer. King Louis XVI was called « Citoyen Louis Capet » by his judges and not « Your Majesty ». These words have kept an ega­li­ta­rian fla­vour, even if today no worker or elec­tor would dare to call his boss or his MP « citoyen » or « citoyenne ».

Today, most people regret the « good old times » when neigh­bours talked to eacho­ther, helped eacho­ther, when young men gave their seat to old ladies, pre­gnant women or old men. The news­pa­pers are full of horrid sto­ries of old people dying alone in tower blocks or big buil­dings, of women who are haras­sed or raped in the tube while the pas­sen­gers look the other way, etc. Modern society pre­sents itself in TV series of news shows as a society based on sel­fish fee­lings, indi­vi­dua­lism, etc.

In such a situa­tion the « citoyen­nis­tes » have found a solu­tion : state ser­vi­ces should replace faulty soli­da­rity links and human rela­tion­ships. We should have more social wor­kers, coa­ches, care­ta­kers, cops, prison war­dens, par­king guards, etc.

For the « citoyen­nis­tes » the rela­tion bet­ween each indi­vi­dual and the state can replace the tra­di­tio­nal soli­da­rity ties of the wor­kers move­ment. This ideo­logy pre­tends that bour­geois demo­cracy can be radi­cally oppo­sed to capi­ta­lism (an old marxist idea, by the way) ; that the state has to be re-infor­ced to empo­wer par­lia­men­tary demo­cracy, and that citi­zens must be mobi­li­zed in order to imple­ment this poli­ti­cal pro­ject. The « citoyen­nis­tes » want openly to huma­nize capi­ta­lism, to trans­form it into a more just system. They replace class strug­gle by elec­tions and demo­cra­tic pres­su­res over the elec­ted per­son­nel. Citizens are not allo­wed to replace the state or to des­troy it. They may just from time to time prac­tice what ATTAC calls « civic deso­be­dience », a much more res­pec­ta­ble word than « civi­lian deso­be­dience ». With this ideo­logy eve­ry­thing has to become « citoyen » : poli­ti­cal debate, com­mu­ni­ca­tion, schools, com­pa­nies, etc.

The « citoyen­nis­tes » dont want to get rid of the capi­ta­list system, wage labor, capi­tal and money. They just wish to improve and extend public ser­vi­ces. They consi­der the bour­geois state as a para­site which ruins the good rela­tion­ships which should reign bet­ween the citi­zens-consu­mers and capi­tal. They fight for a « civic demo­cracy », a « par­ti­ci­pa­tive demo­cracy », not for socia­lism. The « citoyen­nis­tes » are even ready to vio­lently confront the state - from time to time - but their aim is to bring came­ras and jour­na­lists on the spot of the confron­ta­tion, in order to rapidly dis­cuss bet­ween « res­pon­si­ble » lea­ders. The bour­geois state loves also to orga­nize « civic confe­ren­ces », « civic consul­ta­tions » and to « give the citi­zens the right to speak ». The « citoyen­nis­tes » view them­sel­ves as pro­fes­sio­nal inter­me­dia­ries betwen « civic society » and the state. « Citoyennisme » is the ideo­logy of the petty bour­geoi­sie and the middle class, and has been, until now, unable to form a real party.

« Citoyennistes » groups gene­rally func­tion as lob­bies, they dont need to have a strong social base, they love to appear as experts on all sorts of pro­blems. The inter­nal func­tio­ning of ATTAC is very typi­cal : ATTAC pro­vi­des hun­dreds of trans­la­tors, thou­sands of spe­cia­lists, tens of thou­sands of arti­cles and docu­ments on all sorts of pro­blems. The local mili­tants have the impres­sion of belon­ging to a huge « popu­lar uni­ver­sity » but the real power lies in the hands of 30 per­sons who are not elec­ted and will never be dethro­ned, because they coopt the new mem­bers of the lea­der­ship. This « citoyen­niste » move­ment is basi­cally a moral move­ment : against war, for peace, againt McDonald and for good orga­nic food, againt poverty and for pros­pe­rity. Who can be hos­tile to such a nice pro­gramm ?

« Citoyennistes » prefer what they call « soli­da­ric eco­nomy » to « libe­ral eco­nomy » ; concre­tely, they defend small coope-rati­ves of pro­duc­tion against big mul­ti­na­tio­nals. They want to « equally share the wealth », to « tax capi­tal », to « take money in the capi­ta­lists’ pockets ». But they seem to ignore that capi­tal and money are not neu­tral forces or ins­tru­ments which could be used for other aims. It’s not sur­pri­sing that such a confu­sed ideo­logy has close ties with mul­ti­cultu­ra­lism, an other ideo­logy which refu­ses to consi­der the exis­tence of social clas­ses and of class strug­gle.

Most of the « citoyen­nis­tes » mili­tants are cer­tainly sin­cere, but the role of revo­lu­tio­na­ries is to help them to open their eyes, not to flat­ter their pseudo-refor­mist concep­tions.