May 68

[B0LSHEVIK]

What exactly happened in May of 68 in France?

I know it was a student movement, I know they were backed by trade unions and I know that some France's best social programs like universal education came out of it.

But what exactly led to the uprisings? How did they start, grow, and take effect? What was the outcome? What did it deliver for the French working class?

Thx!

[B0LSHEVIK]

Anyone?

[Die Neue Zeit]

It was adventurist crap:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/pcfs-role-may-t138705/index.html

[Jose Gracchus]

Anyone with less of an agenda? I'd like to hear what the leftcoms and council coms think?

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

What exactly happened in May of 68 in France?

I know it was a student movement, I know they were backed by trade unions and I know that some France's best social programs like universal education came out of it.

But what exactly led to the uprisings? How did they start, grow, and take effect? What was the outcome? What did it deliver for the French working class?

Thx!

EXACTLY? Friend, I was there (worker and union member, not a student), and you want to know EXACTLY? Let me try to give you a few hints:

1) It was not exclusively a student movement. It was provoked by student clashes; also by a number of clashes going way back. Some there are (myself included), who believe it all started with the massacre at Metro Charonne, in 1962.

2) Backed by trade unions? Not. Backed by workers having the balls to buck the unions and much else besides? Yes.

3) It "started" on May 13, when a nice, orderly march of several million in Paris broke away (I was in the breakaway group) and turned into workplace occupations. It collapsed when the students and their "leaders" (who were working as closely with then Gov't as the union leaders - closer, actually) backed down when push came to shove, meaning when the Gov't decided to use brute force to evict the workers before they could move on to the next stage (next stage in any serious revolution): to start up the factories without the bosses.

4) The outcome - and forgive the paradox - was the continuation of the acculturation of French culture to capitalist globalization and culture. Read Kristin Ross. The workers got their raises, and then got screwed out of their raises, as usual. What it delivered to the French working class was an extension in time of the unity between cultural elites and the working class that had been building for the previous thirty years. When you say that "France's best social programs like universal education came out of it," you've got it exactly backwards: it was the result of "France's best social programs."

I would recommend that you watch Godard's "Tout va bien." It's not really about '68, it's about what '68 was about to those trying to make sense of it afterwards.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

The Wikipedia article on it, May 1968 in France, isn't too bad imo. Read it while listening to Les Journées de Mai on youtube. I'd post a link if I had enough posts.

The Situationists were very active at the time, and the protesters were obviously influenced by them to some degree. Many of the students seemed to be influenced by On the Poverty of Student Life, which continues to be an excellent, relevant, fairly short, read. I've considered writing a new version of it to distribute at local colleges.

The uprising was a general wildcat strike, meaning all the workers acted without the orders or planning of some central party. In fact, the "communist" party, along with the trade unions, were extremely counter-revolutionary, and urged the workers to go back to work. The SI urged them to continue protesting, but the communists won, so nothing changed.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

The Situationists were very active at the time, and the protesters were obviously influenced by them to some degree. Many of the students seemed to be influenced by On the Poverty of Student Life, which continues to be an excellent, relevant, fairly short, read. I've considered writing a new version of it to distribute at local colleges.
The SI urged them to continue protesting, but the communists won, so nothing changed.

Ah, the legend of the Situs, beloved of American left-but-not-too-left American academics.

1) The Situs were at the margin of the margins in '68, but they had good PR because they recycled Marxist ideas that they stole, mostly from Henri Lefebvre, and American campus lefties love pretending to be radical so long as they don't have to face the actual implications (practical or theoretical) of their games. Because the situationists were always pushing the most radical position they could find, regardless of its meaning, they appeared to be "influencing" the events in France, notably with the attacks on Flins. Of course this influence never stretched as far as actually going out into the streets...

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

I've heard, of course, your opinion that they didn't really have that much to do with the uprising, and haven't been convinced either way. The only evidence I've seen is graffiti and random writings that could be cherry picked to support either argument. But here you have a group of artsy council communists, calling for a revolution without a party based on certain ideals, followed by a general wildcat (which are extremely rare) with an emphasis on culture and some genuine class consciousness among the workers. Maybe cause and effect are mixed up though, I don't know.

Moving on to actual SI thought:
It's true that they tended to hop from theory to theory. By '68 Lefebvre's thoery of moments and Sartre's situation were almost forgotten, but still layed part of the foundation for SI thought. Debord was heavily influenced by Lucacs, but he still built upon his ideas, and didn't steal any of them. I can see why some of the main points of the works in question might imply that he did, but they are actually very different.

There was that minor disagreement over a section on Lefebvre's book on the Paris Commune where the Situationists may well have stolen a bit from Lefebvre (a bit that they jointly wrote), but that's certainly not stealing any of his notable ideas.


Because the situationists were always pushing the most radical position they could find,
American punks in the 70's were. Not members of the SI. The progression of their theory seems, to me, to be completely logical and almost predictable.


and American campus lefties love pretending to be radical so long as they don't have to face the actual implications (practical or theoretical) of their games.
What do you mean? You think we're looking for an excuse to go out and pull some pranks, critique some artists, and settle back into proletarian lifestyle? Believe me, I wish it was as easy as picking up a gun and declaring war on the government. But that's just not going to work in current day France (or America, in my case).

Just because academics like it doesn't mean it's wrong. Regardless, say what you want about the situationists, I don't care if they were thieves that only professors and me like. I've found many of their ideas very useful. Others were drunken bilge. But it's the theory itself that I care about. Do you take issue with any particular part of their theory? (not to change the topic or anything)

I've never seen a serious and persuasive (to me) critique of anything the SI did, including the idiotic stuff (not that I've been looking as hard as I should) so if you feel such a critique exists, I'd love to know about it.

[Jose Gracchus]

So the SI was just more Parisian intellectual mind-games?

[Os Cangaceiros]

This isn't all about France, but it's from a book that I really like, and I think it would be useful to put the French events in context with other European nations:


The mobilization cycle of the working-class dimension of 1968 began in Francoist Spain when, on 27 October 1967, a national day of protest against political repression and the loss of purchasing power led to massive demonstrations, battles with police, and large numbers of arrests in many cities throughout Spain. The mostly proletarian demonstrators thus powerfully battled the image and reality of Spain's then fourty-year old dictatorship. Though Franco would hold on to power until his death in November 1975, in retrospect the year 1967 turned out to be a watershed year. From that year onward, solidarity strikes and work stoppages for openly political claims dominated Spanish labor relations at the expense of claims related to collective bargaining and similarly primarily economic concerns. (edit: take note, DNZ)

In France, 14 May 1968 became the magic date catapulting French labor into the forefront of events. Several weeks into the hot phase of student activism in Paris and elsewhere, the workforce of the Sud-Aviation aircraft factory on the outskirts of Nantes in Southwestern France refused to leave the plant, effectively occupied their factory, and forbade the company manager to leave the grounds. The next day, workers at the Renault car factory in Cleon in semirural Normandy, just south of Rouen, inspired by their comrades in Nantes, likewise began an open-ended strike, occupied the factory, and refused to let the company director out of his office. A telephone call to fellow union activists at the Renault plant in Flins, also located in provincial Normandy, though closer to Paris, led to similar action there. The spark had been struck.

On the evening of 16 May, seventy thousand French workers were out on strike. By 21 May, five million workers had joined the fray. And by the time the strike wave began to recede in early June, between six and eight million workers had participated in the largest shutdown ever experienced in strike-prone France, far exceeding the previous high-water mark for French strike activity, the two million strikers at the heyday of Popular Front activism in May-June 1936. And for about a half dozen years, the number of French strikes exceeded the usual post-1950 levels.

On the other side of the Alps, Italian workers had been involved in a similar mobilization cycle, slowly increasing their strike activity from 1966 onward. In 1967, 2.24 million workers downed their tools. The numbers more than doubled in 1968. But it was not until 1969, and here particularly the last quarter, that the high point of strike activity was reached: 5.5 million workers walked off their jobs, in a series of local, regional and national strikes. On 19 November 1969, almost the entire Italian labor force participated in a one-day general strike. And, as was the case in France as well, labor-management conflicts continued at an accelerated rate for the next half dozen years or so.

Yep...sounds like "adventurism" all right. :rolleyes:

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

But here you have a group of artsy council communists, calling for a revolution without a party based on certain ideals, followed by a general wildcat (which are extremely rare) with an emphasis on culture and some genuine class consciousness among the workers. Maybe cause and effect are mixed up though, I don't know..
Funny how so many reds and liberals share the belief that people - and workers in particular - are unable to act or think without leaders. Funny - actually, not so funny - how the Gov't was obsessed with tracking down the "leaders" of '68 after the fact, and trust me, the rewards for the properly repentant, self-described "leaders" were substantial.

Funny, also, that it hasn't occurred to you that many students and workers were well versed in any number of anarchist or communist theories long before '68. Anarcho-syndicalism was particularly strong in the factories. As for the graffiti: the Paris metro stations were regularly plastered with "Spartakus" slogans long before '68.


Debord was heavily influenced by Lucacs, but he still built upon his ideas, and didn't steal any of them.
In the abstract I have no problem with creative, unacknowledged borrowing, especially among French intellectuals, who expect the reader to recognize the quote or the allusion. I have a big problem when it's taken up by American or British, uh, "intellectuals" who don't have the philosophical foundation to understand the sources, and use Debord's writings the way our friend Rosa uses Marx and philosophy: as a cudgel to bully the real Marxists.


Believe me, I wish it was as easy as picking up a gun and declaring war on the government. But that's just not going to work in current day France (or America, in my case)....
Just because academics like it doesn't mean it's wrong....

But it's the theory itself that I care about.
I have the greatest respect for students and others who are honestly trying to change things, no matter the theory they bring to bear on a practical task. I have nothing but contempt for those who pick up SI, not for the theory itself, but because all they get out of it is a form of what Marx called "aesthetic socialism" cloaked as usual in revolutionary jargon.


I've never seen a serious and persuasive (to me) critique of anything the SI did, including the idiotic stuff (not that I've been looking as hard as I should) so if you feel such a critique exists, I'd love to know about it.

Reminds me of my favorite post '68 bathroom-wall exchange:

- Bourgeois, you have understood nothing!
- That's because you've said nothing!

Cordially,

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

I did not mean to imply that the situationists were leaders, just that their tactics were working to some degree.


Funny, also, that it hasn't occurred to you that many students and workers were well versed in any number of anarchist or communist theories long before '68. Anarcho-syndicalism was particularly strong in the factories. As for the graffiti: the Paris metro stations were regularly plastered with "Spartakus" slogans long before '68. How was that evident in my post? I said the opposite: that graffiti can't be used as evidence of the situationists' influence (through tactics, not leadership).

I agree with the rest of your post (especially the end). Since you lived through the '70s (I'm only 21) I'm sure you probably put up with a bunch of those types. I've never even met another situationist, with the exception of people on this board and one modern lit professor.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So the SI was just more Parisian intellectual mind-games?

Parisian intellectuals: the worst left academics.

[StalinFanboy]

This has a pretty good account of what went down in the factories during May 68 http://www.prole.info/texts/generalstrike1968.html

I would also read this book http://www.amazon.com/Enrages-Situationists-Occupation-Movement-Paris/dp/0936756799 if you can get a hold of a copy or are willing to throw down some dollars.

Don't listen to dipshits like Die Neue Zeit.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Dipshits? Spontaneism doesn't work in the long run.

[StalinFanboy]

First of all, the spontaneous movement of workers is a historical fact. It is not an ideology with which we try to apply to the world, but an observable fact. Workers move regardless of pro-revolutionaries.

Second, every movement that has oriented itself to the destruction of capital has failed. So... yeah

[Die Neue Zeit]

There's acknowledging creative spontaneity, and then there's vulgar "materialism" that ignores the role of institutional organization.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

I did not mean to imply that the situationists were leaders, just that their tactics were working to some degree.

The situs did not have tactics, or even consistency. Either in their (nonexistent) actions, or their writing, which at least has the virtue of being so inconsistent that some of it ends up making for interesting reading.


I said the opposite: that graffiti can't be used as evidence of the situationists' influence (through tactics, not leadership). But even if it were used, it would yield the opposite conclusions.


I've never even met another situationist
That's something we have in common...;)

Be well.

[B0LSHEVIK]

First off, thanks for all the responses! But Im kind of still back at square one, that is trying to decipher what actually happened in the May events of 1968. It always ends up with the same picture, depending of who you ask.

IMO, I feel that PCF had been counter-revolutionary for quite a while by the time of May 1968. So, I tend to side with the idea that the workers and the rank-and-file Frenchman were the core of the movement. Spontaneous, I dont know. Thats why I was asking what started the events. Did something change? A law? A regulation? Or did it truly come out of nothing?

Also, I had it understood that certain trade unions did support the movement, which ones however, I cant remember. I also had it understood that Frances modern social programs came out of May 68 too, true?

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Im kind of still back at square one, that is trying to decipher what actually happened in the May events of 1968.
That only happens in reactionary Historicism. Making sense of what happened IS making History. As the great historian Marc Bloch put it, the search for a unique cause is usually no more than a search for the usual suspects.


IMO, I feel that PCF had been counter-revolutionary for quite a while by the time of May 1968.
In the sense of not wanting to upset the apple cart? Absolutely. In all fairness, the PCF had enormous prestige for its support and defense of the social support network, which it had set up in the coalition gov't following WWII.

I also had it understood that Frances modern social programs came out of May 68 too, true?
Nope. In fact, the PCF collapsed as an electoral force when it collaborated with the Socialists to dismantle the Social-Democratic state.


So, I tend to side with the idea that the workers and the rank-and-file Frenchman were the core of the movement. Spontaneous, I dont know. Thats why I was asking what started the events. Did something change? A law? A regulation? Or did it truly come out of nothing?
Sure, the core - and this even included a segment of the petite bourgeoisie for a short while. Spontaneous? absolutely not. The workers, the middle classes, the young, had been thoroughly "trained" by two decades of leftist non-PC agitation on the levels of culture, of intellectual discussion. If you want to single out yet another event that 'sparked' the Revolution you could chose the police beating up on Godard, Truffaut and others in a protest in February, '68.
The other "training" came from the incredible violence and repression that accompanied the Algerian War and the Gaullist coup. That's why I mentioned the massacre of Metro Charonne, in 1962. The only historian I've read who captured this ferment is Herbert Luethy, in France against Herself.


Also, I had it understood that certain trade unions did support the movement, which ones however, I cant remember.
Funny, neither can I. Though the unions did play a game of co-optation, so it was hard to tell what their private intentions were behind their public pledges of support.

[StalinFanboy]

Dunno why I didn't think of this before, but this is an excellent account of what happened, especially as far as the student stuff goes. The second half is a really good analysis of what happened and why it failed.

[black magick hustla]

It was adventurist crap:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/pcfs-role-may-t138705/index.html
i was gonna ask how is one of the biggest wildcat strikes in european history "adventurist" but then i remembered i never read your posts

[black magick hustla]

arent you some social democratic weirdo with a chubby for second internationale corpses

[S.Artesian]

Excuse me, but I think what Bolshevik is asking for is a materialist analysis of the explosion in Paris 1968 that put students and workers in motion. Like maybe, not too put too fine a point on it, inflation. Like maybe, not to put too fine a point on it, the rate of profit over the period leading to 1968, the rate of investment-- and maybe we can link this up globally, to similar circumstances in the US, in Mexico, can't forget Vietnam[thank you Martha and the Vandellas]... all that stuff that makes up historical materialism.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Excuse me, but I think what Bolshevik is asking for is a materialist analysis of the explosion in Paris 1968 that put students and workers in motion. Like maybe, not too put too fine a point on it, inflation. Like maybe, not to put too fine a point on it, the rate of profit over the period leading to 1968, the rate of investment.
If it's a straightforward "economic crisis" explanation you want you're going to have a hard time with it, the thirty years following WWII are usually called "Les 30 glorieuses," in France because of the long economic boom. Now if you're looking for a "materialist" explanation, as in "“The material forces of production come into conflict with the existing relations of production," [Marx], sure. But that still ends bearing the appearance of a cultural and social revolution.

[S.Artesian]

Nope, not economic crisis. Crisis is how capitalism resolves the conflict between means and relations of production. But I'll bet if we search, we'll find a slowing of the rate of growth, a bit of overproduction here and there, an increasing portion of the wage share-- all those things that indicate capital is running up the inside of the cage of its own making.....

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

I'll bet if we search, we'll find a slowing of the rate of growth, a bit of overproduction here and there, an increasing portion of the wage share-- all those things that indicate capital is running up the inside of the cage of its own making.....
Touché. Yes, very noticeable after 1966. I still recall how, almost overnight, the rather shabby neighborhood where I lived turned into a kind of party town, with boutiques and conspicuous consumption appearing as if out of nowhere; not to mention aggressive government campaigns to encourage consumption. In her book Fast cars, clean bodies Kristin Ross gives a particularly elegant analysis of this in the movie La Belle Americaine, in which a Parisian working-class couple win an American luxury car and don't really know what to do with it.

[StalinFanboy]

Dunno why I didn't think of this before, but this is an excellent account of what happened, especially as far as the student stuff goes. The second half is a really good analysis of what happened and why it failed.

lol meant to post this

http://theanarchistlibrary.org//HTML/Roger_Gregoire___Fredy_Perlman__Worker-Student_Action_Committees._France_May__68.html