What did we learn from 1968 in Europe and the U.S.?

[the Left™]

I know 1968 had substantial student movements in the west-- advocacy for workers rights, anti-war protests etc. But what came from it? What actually changed?

[Geiseric]

Post Modernism came from it, along with a general state of dissaray on the left, which ultimately was the begining of the decline of the world workers movement.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I know 1968 had substantial student movements in the west-- advocacy for workers rights, anti-war protests etc. But what came from it? What actually changed?

1968 wasn't really a revolutionary period for the working class.

[svenne]

There was a lot more going on besides the students movements, and it's propably better to talk of a period of... well, more (workers) struggles - with a boom somewhere in 1968 (may, maybe). Anti-colonial struggles, the civil rights movements, the wildcat strikes etc.

[Geiseric]

students movements, especially ones of oppressed nationalities, were huge and massively successful all through the 60's. The thing that killed these movements was the refusal to attack racial inequality on the side of white college activists. We can't make that mistake again.

[Art Vandelay]

I would say that we learned that without a mass party movement, the proletariat cannot pose a serious threat to state power.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

1968 wasn't really a revolutionary period for the working class.


Only imagine if Social-Democrats did not exist!

[Paulappaul]

I would say that we learned that without a mass party movement, the proletariat cannot pose a serious threat to state power.

I run a blank whenever I read this line, cause you know there was huge "Mass parties" in almost every country where there was spontaneous working class outbursts and every self proclaimed party of the proletariat seemed to be generally counter intuitive to the movement.

What did we learned from 1968?
http://blog.occupiedlondon.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/fuck19681.gif

Who gives a fuck?

[Art Vandelay]

I run a blank whenever I read this line, cause you know there was huge "Mass parties" in almost every country where there was spontaneous working class outbursts and every self proclaimed party of the proletariat seemed to be generally counter intuitive to the movement.

What did we learned from 1968?
http://blog.occupiedlondon.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/fuck19681.gif

Who gives a fuck?

The state was sitting there for the taking in France in 68', but the proletariat lacked a revolutionary vanguard to seize state power; perhaps I should have specified "revolutionary," but I figured that would of been obvious, given the nature of the site.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well for many it signaled that class struggle was possible anywhere: Paris, Mexico, Eastern Europe. It helped generalize other developing struggles like in the US, the Black Power movement; in Vietnam, Tet showed the US had no support or ability to control the region.

[Blake's Baby]

It was the working class returning to struggle after 40 years of blackest counter-revolution. Not in itself a revolutionary situation, but the begining of a new period of increased class-struggle. The student protests were part of it, but 8-10 million workers on strike in France is pretty significant, and the international wave of struggles (in Italy, Argentina and other places) was a sign that the student struggles (important though they were were) were merely an aspect of a wider return to class struggle by the working class.

But in and of themselves, the events of the late '60s and early '70s were only a begining, I'd argue; rather than a revolution that failed, they were more a turning of the tide, which began to flow in our favour again after 40-odd years of reaction.

[Paulappaul]

The state was sitting there for the taking in France in 68', but the proletariat lacked a revolutionary vanguard to seize state power; perhaps I should have specified "revolutionary," but I figured that would of been obvious, given the nature of the site.

err... just about every "Revolutionary" party and organization pre - 68 was pouting the revolutionary line. I am yet to be sold on how you or any other so called "Vanguard Revolutionary Marxist Worker + 500 million more specifications and conjunctions Party" is any different. Even the Situationists which held a sizable influence couldn't sway the populace. It's really easy to say all they needed was an organization to seize the state, overlooking a revolution isn't a walk in the park and consciousness of the working class wasn't there.

[campesino]

general strikes without offensive seizure of power, will lead to the status quo.

[Art Vandelay]

err... just about every "Revolutionary" party and organization pre - 68 was pouting the revolutionary line. I am yet to be sold on how you or any other so called "Vanguard Revolutionary Marxist Worker + 500 million more specifications and conjunctions Party" is any different. Even the Situationists which held a sizable influence couldn't sway the populace. It's really easy to say all they needed was an organization to seize the state, overlooking a revolution isn't a walk in the park and consciousness of the working class wasn't there.

Your not going to hear any arguments from me on this point, the material conditions necessary for a revolutionary situation simply wasn't present; ie: there was no revolutionary situation.

[Rafiq]

I know 1968 had substantial student movements in the west-- advocacy for workers rights, anti-war protests etc. But what came from it? What actually changed?

A lot. Not necessarily for the better, though.

Firstly, it should be emphasized that '68 was not at all completely proletarian in nature and was a reflection of organizational failures and the breadcrumbs of what remained of the contemporary proletarian offensive (intellectually, culturally, and of course scratching the surface economically). In other words, the power of the proletarian movement. The problem with '68 was largely organizational and, many intellectuals who spectated greatly underestimated the sheer "revolutionary" (to quote Former communist 'Marxists') nature of capital. What I mean by this is that, all of the cultural fronts pushed from '68, "Fight the system-esque slogans" and rhetoric, Sexual liberation, ecological romanticism, moralism, student's rights, etc. Were all utilized and adjusted to become cultural components of Bourgeois culture, furtherly sustaining class relations. Now, we have mass produced "fight the system" stereotypes which are laughed at, Che Guevara shirts (even some Mao shit), Everything from the Sexual revolution was integrated except the antisexism, we now have Starbucks-style green capitalism, charitable organizations on a mass scale, relaxed "students rights", less bourgeois conservativism (But Bourgeois culture none the less), etc... All that remained were not even anti capitalist in nature, the Communist movement, destroyed, split into several single issue campaigns, all of which were fully constrained by capitalist social relations and remained commodified.

The second half of the 20th century was by far probably the biggest fuck up the proletarian movement has ever dealt with, by far, historically, the greatest blow they have ever received (1990's). 1968 was not responsible for this mess, on the contrary, it was a merely a reflection of an already impending fuck up.

[Rafiq]

I run a blank whenever I read this line, cause you know there was huge "Mass parties" in almost every country where there was spontaneous working class outbursts and every self proclaimed party of the proletariat seemed to be generally counter intuitive to the movement.


See: Class based mass party movement.

[Paulappaul]

See: Class based mass party movement. Whatever, that's just bs revolutionary rhetoric. I don't doubt that were some wealthy people in the Communist and Socialist parties, or in the self proclaimed "Vanguard parties" but it doesn't disregard the fact that the people in these organizations were by and large working class.

Really the programmatic organizations were the workers councils and strike committees, and we can throw around that these were "mass party movements" but really that's just semantics.

[Rafiq]

Whatever, that's just bs revolutionary rhetoric. I don't doubt that were some wealthy people in the Communist and Socialist parties, or in the self proclaimed "Vanguard parties" but it doesn't disregard the fact that the people in these organizations were by and large working class.


I don't want to be mean, but it doesn't look like you have the slightest conception of what constitutes as a class based mass party movement, or moreover, what constitutes as class at all. The majority of people in organizations such as Social democratic parties or far right parties (anti immigrant) were "by and large working class". What kind of point are you trying to make, here? Do you even have the slightest conception of what false consciousness is? And here you are, "lol I dont give a fuck".

[Paulappaul]

but it doesn't look like you have the slightest conception of what constitutes as a class based mass party movement

spare me the theatrics, you do just seem like a dick when you do that.


The majority of people in organizations such as Social democratic parties or far right parties (anti immigrant) were "by and large working class". What kind of point are you trying to make, here?

I didn't mention Social Democracy, I said Communist and Socialist. I don't think there was any false conciousness, these were people familar with Marxist theory or at least symphathized with the goals of the Socialist movement, familar with class struggle and class disctiontions, ultimately aware that they are the working class, and the employing class is not their friend. And not only that they realize that a working class movement must come to power - viz they are aware of historical materialism. So they were working class, there wasn't any false consciousness, they were aware of their class position and their historical goal. That's alot different then bourgeois parties.


And here you are, "lol I dont give a fuck".

:thumbup1:

[o well this is ok I guess]

Post Modernism came from it, along with a general state of dissaray on the left, which ultimately was the begining of the decline of the world workers movement. Why is pomo blamed for everything

[Veovis]

Whenever I read about these failed revolutions, I wonder how many more new mistakes we'll have to make - and how many more times will we have to make the same mistakes over again - before we finally get it right. :(

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why is pomo blamed for everythingBecause, in the US at least, it's a ubiqutious and dominant view - especially in Universities and among liberal/progressive activists.

I don't blame it for anything other than being a generally useless set of ideas.

[Rafiq]

I didn't mention Social Democracy, I said Communist and Socialist. I don't think there was any false conciousness, these were people familar with Marxist theory or at least symphathized with the goals of the Socialist movement, familar with class struggle and class disctiontions, ultimately aware that they are the working class, and the employing class is not their friend. And not only that they realize that a working class movement must come to power - viz they are aware of historical materialism. So they were working class, there wasn't any false consciousness, they were aware of their class position and their historical goal. That's alot different then bourgeois parties.


Are you familiar with the notion of an analogy? You stated that "Ha, mass party movement? What about communist and socialist parties in Europe", of which I replied by stating that a mass party movement must be class based, from which you replied that "Well, majority of those parties were proletarians". And the majority of just about any party is composed of proletarians. That was my point.

Declaring yourself a Marxist of whom is familiar with Socialist lingo doesn't signify the absence of false consciousness, Stalinism is my witness. Those parties were not mass-party movements, nor were they proletarian in nature.

[Ocean Seal]

Post Modernism came from it, along with a general state of dissaray on the left, which ultimately was the begining of the decline of the world workers movement.
That happened long before 1968 friend (the state of disarray).

[o well this is ok I guess]

Because, in the US at least, it's a ubiqutious and dominant view - especially in Universities and among liberal/progressive activists.

I don't blame it for anything other than being a generally useless set of ideas. It's really not that influential
It's really not influential at all
that is not what is happening in universities

[Paulappaul]

Are you familiar with the notion of an analogy? You stated that "Ha, mass party movement? What about communist and socialist parties in Europe", of which I replied by stating that a mass party movement must be class based, from which you replied that "Well, majority of those parties were proletarians". And the majority of just about any party is composed of proletarians. That was my point.

Declaring yourself a Marxist of whom is familiar with Socialist lingo doesn't signify the absence of false consciousness, Stalinism is my witness. Those parties were not mass-party movements, nor were they proletarian in nature. Yeah sorry I don't think Stalinists have false consciousness, I think they have a different route to the same end goal. One of which I don't agree with, but it doesn't disregard the fact that these were Marxists and they were working class individuals. Subsequently these Communist and Socialist Parties were mass-party movements that had a real basis in class struggle and were proletarian in nature.

In the end, you just repeated yourself and now I must repeat myself. I suspect this will just go on in circles (and I hate public pissing contests), not sure if it is even worth you responding unless in PM.

[Rafiq]

Stalinism is a variant of false consciousnesses, it is the embodiment of the degeneration of an objectively proletarian revolution. A mass party movement is more than what the name implies, a real basis in class struggle? The one, you know, that ended with Eurocommunism? While it is unquestionable that some rhetoric was proletarian in nature, labor disputes, etc, they did not operate within the framework of the highest form of class conciousness.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Only one lesson: Smash and burn everything as fast as possible - recouperation can happen in a matter of days.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The late 60's were a pretty eventful time...large-scale rioting and strikes in Spain, Mai 68 in France, very large mobilizations in Italy, the formation of worker's organizations in Czechoslovakia in the aftermath of the Prague Spring, etc.

And that was just in Europe. There were very notable events happening all over the world, like the Tlatelolco Massacre in Mexico and the Cultural Revolution in China.

All of these things had ripple effects in history. I'd say that the biggest long-term effects of the movements of 68 reflect inside the Left itself, though. Communists post-new left tended to have a bigger focus on social issues like gender, sexuality, race etc.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Also, it seems disingenous to me to blame "pomo" or whatever for 1968's shortcomings. The methods of organization and the institutions in which people ultimately put their faith were (for the most part) the standard institutions of the Left. Even divergent trends like autonomia ultimately fell into this category...after all, a big part of the autonomist project was a reassessment of conditions, in order to better form a vanguard party.

[Geiseric]

Post modernism, and all of the "Things have changed, so we need to completely abandon social movements" ideologies which represent a completely revisionist (Not the Stalinist usage) split of Marxism, and class struggle in general resulted after the failure of 1968. The DNC failure was the beginning of the decline of the American militant students union, at least. COINTELPRO also started around this time period, targeted at black militants. Wasn't the Sino Soviet split around this time too?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Post modernism, and all of the "Things have changed, so we need to completely abandon social movements" ideologies which represent a completely revisionist (Not the Stalinist usage) split of Marxism, and class struggle in general resulted after the failure of 1968.

Sorry, that happened after 1968 on what planet?
If anything, my experience of the contemporary left is a bizarre fetishization of social movements at the expense of a serious revolutionary projectuality.

[redstarradical]

It's better to look at what went on in colonial nations at this time to really see what happened, where the influences came form, where the victories were and what inspired and helped develop nuance in the modern left politic. Yeah, there were some divisions caused by it, but that's largely at the fault of the CP and other democratic centralist organizations who have been waiting for the workers to jump on their bandwagon assuming that is the model for revolutionary change.

LOTS of awesome stuff happened in Africa, especially in South Africa in the post-68 period that has heavily influenced left politics.

[Geiseric]

What's serious revolutionary projectuality? I'm unfamiliar with that term.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's really not that influential
It's really not influential at all
that is not what is happening in universitiesWhat is then in US academia?

It was unquestionably dominant in the humanities when I was in school a decade ago. There was also a debate about if Pomo was "over" but no one really had a view of where that left things or what had superceeded it.

[hetz]

What's serious revolutionary projectuality? I'm unfamiliar with that term.
It's not a serious term. :laugh: