Thoughts on France, 1968?

[Yuppie Grinder]

This subject has interested me for a long time and I've only now just begun reading about it.
How do you feel about what happened in the spring of '68 in France? What are your thoughts on the situationists and their involvement in the events?

[the Left™]

I did a bit of quick research and I thought "on the poverty of student life" was an interesting piece of literature from the SI. Basically one of its most damning criticisms was about student adherence to university and societal ideological hegemony and subsequent bohemian lifestylism/single-issue advocacy in 60's France. Sort of interesting. I dont know much about the movement id be interested in hearing other peoples thoughts about it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

May 1968 didn't really present a revolutionary situation for the French working class, I'm afraid.

[bricolage]

the situationist international was very small, I don't think there were ever more than about 10-20 members. obviously more people read the publications than that but I have the feeling that their impact has been overemphasised post-68 mainly because it's a lot easier for academia to recuperate abstract theories of spectacles than it is to do the same about a 10 million strong general strike. I'm also of the opinion that they had a negative legacy of esoteric jargon, at least outside of france and especially in the US/UK. I like vaneigem a lot more than debord but I still think the situationist fetishism of much of 'radical' left should be dropped pretty quickly.

none of this is to devalue to the relevance of May 68 as the largest general strike (wildcat general strike I might add) in history and a key component of the re-emergence of class struggle post 'golden age' of capitalism. and of course rolling out a grand piano to play chopin behind the barricades remains the single most romantic act of revolution ever.

[Blake's Baby]

It marked the end of 45 years of open counter-revolution. Without the working class actually raising itself to the level of fundamentally being able to challenge captalism and the state on a worldwide basis, it was at least a sign that it was beginning to challenge the ideological hegemony of capitalism. It also wasn't just limited to France - the echoes of '68 reverberated around the world (or another way of looking at it would be, the world situation in the late '60s produced an upsurge in class struggle in many places). Argentina, Italy and Germany , and even to an extent the US and Britain, as well as I'm sure other places I don't know about, all saw a rise in class struggle in the late '60s and '70s.

But, that doesn't mean that it didn't have its limitations. Emerging from the 'midnight of the century' class struggle was hardly likely to pick up again with a fully-realised revolutionary theory; it was impossible for that first new generation of revolutionaries to solve the problems of that 45 year hiatus.

Still, in its critique of the unions and of the Socialist and Stalinist parties, I think it made a bloody good start.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It marked the end of 45 years of open counter-revolution. Without the working class actually raising itself to the level of fundamentally being able to challenge captalism and the state on a worldwide basis, it was at least a sign that it was beginning to challenge the ideological hegemony of capitalism.

[...]

But, that doesn't mean that it didn't have its limitations. Emerging from the 'midnight of the century' class struggle was hardly likely to pick up again with a fully-realised revolutionary theory; it was impossible for that first new generation of revolutionaries to solve the problems of that 45 year hiatus.

At least you aren't taking the ultra-left stance that somehow this presented a "revolutionary situation" to the working class. Spontaneism doesn't yield this, as a rule. A Marxist party with an actual strategy would refer to the July Days as precedent for pulling off something like what the PCF did (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pcfs-role-may-t138705/index.html) (obviously without the reform coalitionism).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

At least you aren't taking the ultra-left stance that somehow this presented a "revolutionary situation" to the working class. Spontaneism doesn't yield this, as a rule. A Marxist party with an actual strategy would refer to the July Days as precedent for pulling off something like what the PCF did (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pcfs-role-may-t138705/index.html).

You're chatting shit. The July Days were a cautious tactic as part of a revolutionary strategy, evidenced by the Bolsheviks' revolutionary (..!) program. In May 1968, the PCF led a collaborationist tactic of 'get back to work' as part of a reformist strategy.

Clear difference between micro-managing tactics, and overall strategy. Clearly the PCF strategy was not aimed towards revolution. Your party fetishism shines through, as does your fear of genuine revolution, as you clearly have no idea what, in practical terms, it actually entails in reality.

[Jimmie Higgins]

As others have said, I think of it as a watershed moment and important in showing that even workers in the powerful countries at the height of social-democratic reforms will still raise hell. With the eating comes the hunger as they said. Love the posters of that time too.

I never saw the draw in regards to Situationism though, I'd be curious to hear what people find appealing about it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You're chatting shit. The July Days were a cautious tactic as part of a revolutionary strategy, evidenced by the Bolsheviks' revolutionary (..!) program. In May 1968, the PCF led a collaborationist tactic of 'get back to work' as part of a reformist strategy.

Clear difference between micro-managing tactics, and overall strategy. Clearly the PCF strategy was not aimed towards revolution. Your party fetishism shines through, as does your fear of genuine revolution, as you clearly have no idea what, in practical terms, it actually entails in reality.

For all intents and purposes, most Bolsheviks were telling workers to "get back to work" during the July Days, though some were entertaining the remote possibility of seizing power right there and then. :glare:

As for the PCF, "as part of a reformist strategy" is the big problem, not the "get back to work" tactic itself (again, as per the Bolshevik experience).

Again, I said above that "A Marxist party with an actual strategy would refer to the July Days as precedent for pulling off something like what the PCF did." What does that mean? Your own words, "cautious tactic as part of a revolutionary strategy," come to mind.

That was the point of my thought-provoking PCF thread.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

For all intents and purposes, most Bolsheviks were telling workers to "get back to work" during the July Days, though some were entertaining the remote possibility of seizing power right there and then. :glare:

As for the PCF, "as part of a reformist strategy" is the big problem, not the "get back to work" tactic itself (again, as per the Bolshevik experience).

Again, I said above that "A Marxist party with an actual strategy would refer to the July Days as precedent for pulling off something like what the PCF did." What does that mean? Your own words, "cautious tactic as part of a revolutionary strategy," come to mind.

That was the point of my thought-provoking PCF thread.

Your 'thought-provoking' PCF thread was not in fact as labelled, it simply got you intellectually trashed, once again.

Either you're missing the point due to being dense, or to obfuscate your own reformist, anti-worker revolution tendencies; if the 'get back to work' tactic is a cautious one as part of an overall militant, revolutionary strategy, then it is understandable, as the aim is clearly shown not to be to fend off revolution, but to give it every chance of succeeding [i.e. maturing, waiting until class consciousness is heightened to the peaks of political consciousness] (of course, given context etc.). If the same 'get back to work' tactic is part of an overall reformist strategy, then it can be shown to be a tactic based in the depths of counter-revolution, as it will surely be an ends in itself, rather than a means to an end (i.e. revolution!).

You seem to fail to grasp this very simple truth, probably undermining your credibility more than your frequent use of words that do not/will not exist.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Again, I said above that "A Marxist party with an actual strategy would refer to the July Days as precedent for pulling off something like what the PCF did." What does that mean? Your own words, "cautious tactic as part of a revolutionary strategy," come to mind.



"Again", the July Days have no bearing on this discussion aside from to highlight the reactionary nature of the PCFs demand for the workers to return to work, because we all know (and I believe even you do not deny) that the PCFs call in '68 was not a "cautious tactic as part of a revolutionary strategy", but more realistically a strategy in itself - to avoid revolution and promote/spread reformism throughout the working class. Stop defending this class collaborationist bullshit!

[Die Neue Zeit]

Either you're missing the point due to being dense, or to obfuscate your own reformist, anti-worker revolution tendencies; if the 'get back to work' tactic is a cautious one as part of an overall militant, revolutionary strategy, then it is understandable, as the aim is clearly shown not to be to fend off revolution, but to give it every chance of succeeding (of course, given context etc.). If the same 'get back to work' tactic is part of an overall reformist strategy, then it can be shown to be a tactic based in the depths of counter-revolution, as it will surely be an ends in itself, rather than a means to an end (i.e. revolution!).

At first glance, it seems that you're saying the exact same thing that I am. However, looking deeper, you aren't. See, your words "waiting until class consciousness is heightened to the peaks of political consciousness" betrays your spontaneist definition of "revolutionary strategy," which really isn't much of a strategy.

Every genuine class struggle is political not economic, so "worker awareness is politicized and then heightened to the peaks of class consciousness" would have been far more accurate.

Also, what constitutes an actual revolutionary period for the working class?


Yes, there was mass hostility between the state and the workers, and there was a collapse in the French executive and bureaucracy, but there was no mass political party-movement organizing the wildcat strikes and gaining political support from the workers.

[...]

The features of a revolutionary period were defined by Karl Kautsky in [i]The Road to Power: Political Reflections on Growing Into the Revolution. I have used the four features he outlined.

[...]

Had the Provisional Government repressed the Bolsheviks successfully in later months (which would have meant suppressing Kornilov without relying on Bolshevik agitation), they would be remembered by the left as sellouts. Remember: the July Days were part of a broader revolutionary period, while 1968 wasn't.

So, to counter your other anti-party point, the July Days do have a bearing on this discussion (per the last sentence of that quote).