Is it '68 all over again?

[Djehuti]

There is a growing civil unrest in France. Hundreds of thousand french have demonstrated and at the momeny sixty-three out of 84 universities are on strike.

This is a young workers reaction against the new labour market laws that are being, or are going to be introduced all over Europe. The capital wants for example to remove the entire job security for workers under 26; they want to be able to fire their empoyees whenever they wish to. This has sparked the continuously growing resistance, primarily based on young workers and students (that are schooled to un-employment). There is a potential for this struggles to grow beyond this specific question and develop into a larger critique on capitalism itself.

You can follow the development at: http://libcom.org/blog/

[Monty Cantsin]

This is the kind of stuff i like to hear about...i hope it's heating up.

[violencia.Proletariat]

I hear the French CNT (anarchist syndicalist) isnt very powerful, but they are calling for major strike action. One thing about the French, if this doesnt work out you can always count on them to take some action over something else in the future.

[GoaRedStar]

Here is a good article on whats happening.

The text that follows introduced the ICC public meeting of 11th March in Paris, at which students and militants involved in the recent events debated their experience and the best means for spreading the movement.

As you will have heard from the media, yesterday afternoon several hundred students from the universities in the Paris region went to the Sorbonne, occupied for several days by about 50 students from this college in the heart of Paris. At the college of Censier, the general assembly of students decided to send a massive delegation to bring food to their comrades shut in the Sorbonne by a ring of cops.

Severl hundred students forced their way into the Sorbone, getting in through the windows. But the movement of solidarity with their comrades taken hostage in the trap of occupying the Sorbonne was very heterogeneous. Some students, notably those from censier, tried to discuss with the police riot squads. Some raise the slogan “CRS, join us”,[1] while others shouted “Put Sarkozy on the RMI”.[2] The cops didn’t charge, even if the most excitable ones engaged in some pushing and shoving and some discreet truncheon blows. Despite these skirmishes, to our knowledge there were no arrests at this point. The “forces of order” had obviously received the order not to charge, which enabled the students to get into the Sobonne. Several hundred students had thus fallen into a trap.

The situation shifted last night when there were violent confrontations between the students and the police. At 4:00 am, the CRS succeeded in evacuating the Sorbonne, using truncheons and tear gas. Several dozen students were arrested.

The children of the working class had thus gone through the same tragedy as Monsieur Seguin’s goat.[3] They held out till morning and then the wolf ate them.

Faced with this repression, with the arrests and the policing of the universities, now filled with informers and special branch, the ICC denounces loud and clear the attacks launched by the “democratic” state against the children of the working class. The ICC declares its solidarity with the children of the working class, attacked by the CPE,[4] beaten and arrested by the police.

Today “order reigns” at the Sorbonne. The children of the working class have lost a battle, but the proletariat has not lost the class war.

The best solidarity that the working class can give to the younger generation faced with the attacks of capitalism is for all sectors to engage now in the struggle against the CPE, against all the attacks of the bourgeoisie and against repression. The working class must demand the liberation of its children who have been carted off by the police.

To do that, we have to everywhere hold mass meetings, areas for debate and discussion. We must demonstrate massively in the streets.

But before mobilising, we must reflect, discuss together, the perspective and methods of the struggle. Because the end does not justify all means. The clearest, most conscious elements of the working class, the most conscious elements of student youth must play the role of a vanguard so that the response to the CPE does not become an adventure with no perspective. What happened at the Sorbonne last night was only an episode in a much wider movement, a movement which will, sooner or later, spread like wildfire across national frontiers.

We will now go rapidly over the events of the last few weeks.

Despite the black-out of the bourgeois media, especially the TV, despite the dispersal of the holiday period, since the beginning of February, the university[5] and to a lesser extent the high school students have been mobilising in most of the universities in the big towns to protest against the infamous CPE, which has just been adopted at the National Assembly.[6]

As soon as we heard about what was going on in the colleges and notably at Paris 3-Censier, we mobilised our forces right away to find out what was happening, to understand the significance of this movement, and to play out part in it.

Today, we can state clearly that this movement of student youth has nothing to do with an inter-classist agitation. And this is true even if, in the universities, the children of the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie are largely hostile to the strike and have all kinds of illusions about the future that capitalism offers them. The struggle of the students against the CPE, whatever its outcome, is not a flash in the pan, a revolt with no future. The ICC salutes this movement which is fully part of the combat of the working class.

Why?

First, because the revolt of the students is a legitimate response to a direct, massive and frontal economic attack on the whole working class. With the CPE, the new generations are faced with even more job insecurity and poverty when they finish their studies.

Next, because the students immediately mobilised on class terrain, as they showed masterfully at the 7th March demonstration. They have been able to leave aside their specific demands (such as the reform of the LMD[7]) to put forward demands which the whole working class can take up.

Finally, for the first time since May 68, we have seen students launching slogans appealing for the unity and solidarity of the whole working class: “Workers, unemployed, high school students, university students, the same combat!”

We have seen them going further than the students of May 68: unlike the May 68 generation which was strongly marked by the spirit of contestation and what was called at the time the “generation gap”, the students have put forward the necessity not only for the unity of all sectors of the working class, but also of unity between the generations, between those being attacked by the CPE and the pensioners and future pensioners who are being subjected to an attack on “final earnings” contracts.

If, in some respects, the new generation is a lot more mature than the one at the end of the 60s, it’s precisely because the objective conditions have also matured : the economic crisis has deepened. Today it is openly revealing the irremediable bankruptcy of the capitalist system.

But a more significant sign of the fact that the students of today have gone further than their predecessors in May 68 is the way they have taken the struggle into their own hands, by appropriating in to an astonishing extent the methods of struggle of the workers’ movement and by making solidarity live in this struggle. And this method has been clearly revealed in the general assemblies held at Censier rather than the occupation of the Sorbonne.

We now want to look at what has happened in recent days at Paris 3-Censier.

Every day the students and wage workers[8] on strike have occupied the lecture halls and held mass general assemblies.

Since we have seen with our own eyes what has been going on in these general assemblies at Censier, we can clearly affirm that they function on the model of the workers’ councils. The richness of the discussion, where everyone can speak and express their point of view, the way the tribune organises the debates, the votes, the creation of different commissions, the nomination of delegates elected and revocable by the general assemblies, this whole dynamic, this method of struggle are those which have arisen in the highest moments of the class struggle: in 1905 and 1917 in Russia, in 1918 in Germany, in Poland during the mass strike of August 1980.

For us it is clear that the lungs of the movment , the epicentre of the earthquake, is not at the Sorbonne where the students were shut up in an occupied faculty and encircled by the CRS. The epicentre is the faculty at Censier. And the bourgeoisie knows it. This is why the media have imposed a total black-out on the general assemblies at Censier.

The students at Censier succeeded in drawing their teachers and the administrative personnel into the strike. They succeeded in building a united movement of solidarity. To the point where it was decied to hold joint general assemblies between the students and the faculty employees.

How come these young people, some of whose leaders are in their first year of studies, have begun to move so quickly, taking such a decision since the March 7th demonstration?

Quite simply, because the rejection they received from Monsieur de Villepin[9] after the March 7th demo pushed the students to open their general assemblies to the wage workers and to ask them to speak. In 1968, it was precisely the shutting up of the workers in their factories, as advocated by the trade unions, which enabled the bourgeoisie to send the working class to defeat.

The majority of the workers could not go and discuss with their comrades in other enterprises or with the students. They allowed themselves to be imprisoned behind their factory gates. This is an experience that the younger generation must know about if it is to avoid the traps and manoeuvres of the saboteurs who want to send them to be crushed in small packets.

To go back to what has happened at Censier since 7th March.

On the day of the demo, a small minority of workers from other sectors, who are also revolutionary militants and parents of students in struggle, went to see what was going on in the faculties. And what we saw and heard at the general assemblies at Censier led us to see this student agitation against the CPE as a struggle which is fully part of the combat of the working class. Once again, we declare that the future of human society is in the hands of the young generation. Once again, the old mole of history, as Marx said, has grubbed well. Once again, marxism, the revolutionary theory of the proletariat, has been verified.

continue here http://en.internationalism.org/node/1722

http://www.internationalism.org/

[which doctor]

Stuff like this needs to go down in the US more.

I say that France will be the first country to have a real revolution.

[Crazyvichistan]

France has done it before, and doubtless has the guts to revolt again. I hope that this could spread to a successful '68, though I seriously doubt it. The unrest will have to stir for at least another couple of years before we see a real Mass movement.

[вор в законе]

I say that France will be the first country to have a real revolution.

I believe so too. The French Revolution, Paris Commune , May 68'. France is perfect for a revolution also because it is industrialized and the people are generally class conscious.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I need to go to France.

[Entrails Konfetti]

And they say Communism is a Jewish take over plot.

Hmmm, do they ever account that Marx got his ideas from France, and that three tenants in Marxism are French Socialism, British Economy, and German Philsophy.

The rightwingers never thought that it be could a Gaul/French take over plot.

Well I'm 100% Gaul, thankyou for furthering my cause! :D

Just kidding! ;)

[Xanthus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 06:43 PM
France has done it before, and doubtless has the guts to revolt again. I hope that this could spread to a successful '68, though I seriously doubt it. The unrest will have to stir for at least another couple of years before we see a real Mass movement.
How quickly we forget the recent Parisian riots.

France lacks a mass organisation with a applicable revolutionary program, but there has been plenty of unrest among the lowest layers of the working class for years. The riots lacked any coherent goal, strategy, or program, but they were a very clear sign of unrest.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 03:32 AM
How quickly we forget the recent Parisian riots.

France lacks a mass organisation with a applicable revolutionary program, but there has been plenty of unrest among the lowest layers of the working class for years. The riots lacked any coherent goal, strategy, or program, but they were a very clear sign of unrest.
You mean they lack a leadership to bow down to. I think, just as with the '68 revolt, the insurgencies happening now are a good example of mass revolt that is self-focused as opposed to directed by the "revolutionary" intelligentsia. Students and young workers are taking over their own universities, revolting against their own police, and are learning through experience the need for revolution. Europe has a much greater history of autonomous revolution, and they're not going to submit themselves to a "vanguard party rule." The Parisian revolts were widespread and general, but what is happening now is becoming more focused, through experience. I think the recent events are an incredible inspiration for autonomous insurgency, and I can't wait to see how they evolve.

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

France has a long and very respectable revolutionary tradition, but the situation is reaching an impossible level of hopelessness. The young kids of immigrants, French themselves, that revolted againts the status-quo a few months ago, had the same concerns as the young students and workers fighting right now to defeat the "greater job flexibility" (a euphemism for bosses firing their workers whenever they wish) law that the reactionary Chirac regime wants to impose. Unemployment and economic stagnation due to previous neoliberal policies, are killing French society. People usually don't want to see destroyed the very fabric of their lives. On that we can count

[which doctor]

This is an interesting article on the most recent french riots.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1173501,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1173501,00.html)

I was happy to see that high schools are starting to join the protesters too. Unions are marching with them too. Get me on the next bus to France!

We truly live in revolutionary times!

[вор в законе]

The riots lacked any coherent goal, strategy, or program, but they were a very clear sign of unrest.


That is why they are called riots and that is what they will always be. Without an organized leadership these attempts are bound to fail, unfortunately.




I think, just as with the '68 revolt, the insurgencies happening now are a good example of mass revolt that is self-focused as opposed to directed by the "revolutionary" intelligentsia.

The '68 ''revolt'' failed miserably. Most of these so called ''revolters'' have become MPs in reactionary parties.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y255/RedBrigade/Communist%20Anarchist%20Protests/may6802_1.jpg

[norwegian commie]

That is why they are called riots and that is what they will always be. Without an organized leadership these attempts are bound to fail, unfortunately.

No i dont agree, this can develope to something big. Of course i think you need to organise, and that is mabye what it leads too. Who knows?
Every year sincethe communist ide where born has been revolutionary in my oppinion, the goverment are just good hiding it.



The '68 ''revolt'' failed miserably. Most of these so called ''revolters'' have become MPs in reactionary parties.

When the revolution fails people loose their guts and join the enemy. The rioters where many children of middleclass familyes, not haveing a class background can lead to the expireing of your old values. Same situation in Norway in that time only samaller. The maoists where big and active but now their all social-democrats.

[TC]

The '68 ''revolt'' failed miserably. Most of these so called ''revolters'' have become MPs in reactionary parties.


Whenever you pronounce something a failure, you presume that it failed to meet certain objectives. The intent was never the overthrow of the French state, the Sorbonne students went on strike and occupations in order to compell the reopening of the University of Paris at Nanterre which had been shut down by authorities over a dispute with the students...the national students union went on strikes to demand the release of the Sorbonne prisoners, that the charges against them be dropped and the university be allowed to reopen. All of these objectives, both the initial aim of the Sorbonne students (in supporting the Nanterre students) and the secondary objective of freeing the Sorbonne students and getting the cops out of the Sorbonne were all met successfully, the French authorities agreed to all of the students primary demands...so to call it a failure is absurd given that it was a success by achieving the direct aims of the participants.

[The Feral Underclass]

Is it '68 all over again?

It certainly feels like it but how does one tell whether these things will escalate into 10 million striking workers. The unforunate fact is taht there is no way of knowing how this will go.

The odds are in our favour. The reasoning behind the actions is class based but who is going to take control of any emerging movement and how will they organise? Presumably the students will take lessons from 1968 and know to steer clear of reformism and leninism but you can never tell.

The message needs to be clear and the actions need to be specific. Sometimes groups loose perspective as things slow down and find it difficult to keep momentum.

If this is class struggle based, what are the class struggle organisations doing and how will they keep things moving?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Red Brigade
Without an organized leadership these attempts are bound to fail, unfortunately.

Why "unfortunately"? From the Leninist perspective, you want these spontaneous uprisings to "always fail", do you not?

Should people succeed in making revolution in the complete absence of your "organized leadership", where would that leave you?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[RedStarOverChina]

http://today.reuters.com/tv/videoChannel.a...ad8c7346b9ac614 (http://today.reuters.com/tv/videoChannel.aspx?storyid=02550cdaf0c5c52181cad038 dad8c7346b9ac614)


Originally posted by Reuters
Mar. 16 - French students are stepping up demonstrations in Paris, protesting a contentious job law.

Thousands of French students and schoolchildren have converged on Place d'Italie to protest.

Demonstrators object to new two-year job contracts for anyone under 26.

Critics say the law reduces protections for young workers.

The fresh nationwide protests by students were expected to show hardening opposition to the law .

But Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin has stood firm, saying the contract will cut youth joblessness.Jim Drury reports.

SOUNDBITE: (French) Unidentifed student saying (French):
''Everybody should mobilise. There are blockades in some high schools and it's important that schoolchildren are part of this as it concerns both our futures.''

SOUNDBITE: (French) Unidentifed student saying (French):
''What we want to do is spark a general strike. We've already closed 65 universities out of 85 in France.''

[TC]

You sound absurd Redstar. Marxist-leninists want an organized leadership structure because its a proven effective way to weild the power of a class against another class, whereas leaderless decentralized organization has proven ineffective; it is simply a matter of supporting what works not wanting some specific role within an organization.

If marxist-leninists actually wanted personal power and prestige, we'd not be communists at all, we'd try to get high-powered capitalist jobs and join a ruling capitalist party, because thats the only realistic way to personal political power.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by TragicClown+--> (TragicClown)Marxist-Leninists want an organized leadership structure because it's a proven effective way to wield the power of a class against another class, whereas leaderless decentralized organization has proven ineffective; it is simply a matter of supporting what works, not wanting some specific role within an organization.[/b]

Well, no, it hasn't proven to "be effective" or "work" to do anything but elevate the personnel in the "organized leadership structure" to positions of power.

The "power of the class" was simply a verbal formula repeated on ritual occasions.

Leninists deny this repeatedly, to be sure. But the weight of the historical evidence is overwhelmingly against them.

Starting with Lenin himself...


The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of the class, because in all capitalist countries...the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts...that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot direct exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard.

The Trade Unions, The Present Situation And Trotsky's Mistakes (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm) December 30, 1920


TragicClown
If Marxist-Leninists actually wanted personal power and prestige, we'd not be communists at all; we'd try to get high-powered capitalist jobs and join a ruling capitalist party, because that's the only realistic way to personal political power.

Well, one could also say that if "Marxist"-Leninists were really honest with themselves, then they'd "try to get high-powered capitalist jobs", etc.

The actual historical behavior (in and out of power) of Leninist party leaders does not inspire confidence. They do seem to relish their elevated positions and appear most reluctant to "step down"...even when their incapacity is self-evident.

They routinely "die in office".

And they never heard of "term limits". :lol:

Draw your own conclusions. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[TC]

Leninists deny this repeatedly, to be sure. But the weight of the historical evidence is overwhelmingly against them.

What you're refering to isn't 'historical evidence', rather its rightwing capitalist histories which are as full of propaganda as their current new reporting...but appeal to the sentiments of anarchistic "communists" like yourself because they reinforce your juvenile hostility towards organized power of any sort even working class power.


Well, one could also say that if "Marxist"-Leninists were really honest with themselves, then they'd "try to get high-powered capitalist jobs", etc.


You might say if anarchistic "communists" were really honest with themselves they'd admit that they weren't revolutionaries but passive supporters of capitalism as they've never overthrown a single government, had a single revolution, or even as reformists repealed a single law. I'd suggest you'd stay out of politics but, lets face it, anarchists and left-"communists" have never been able to get into politics, which is why you've amounted to nothing, made no difference.

Honest anarchists/left-coms would drop the revolutionary pretexts and just be punk-rockers.


And they never heard of "term limits".


This is just not a historically accurate statement. Lenin died in office only because he died young, at the peak of his political career. The second and third Premiers of the Soviet Union (Rykov and Molotov) who succeeded Lenin, both left office when they lost popular support, the 4th Premier, Stalin, died in office after a very long term but he was a war leader who enjoyed an increadible level of support (as was the case with FDR), Nikolai Bulganin gave up power after only three years in office, Khrushchev was voted out after six years when he became unpopular for his handling of the Cuban missile crisis and very much politically marginal when he died...i could go on but you see my point. Mao Zedong also, although he remained influencial and respected until his death, was only Chairman of the People's Republic for ten years before he lost the election in the National People's Congress as a result of his failure in the Great Leap Forward in 59'.

You really don't seem to know what you're talking about.

[xprol]

Hi redstar,


What are your ideas about the economic crisis in the US and its war drive. Do you think there is any connection between this imperialist war drive and the 'riots' in France, Ireland, Italy, Australia? Do you ever discuss the world as it is?

Do you have anything to say about 'actual' unfolding events, without dreary academic slight of hand or sectarian 'take-it-or-leave-it' individualist pessimism?

"Some have referred to this discussion as "the party of the future", but I frankly think we should junk the term "party" altogether. It has numerous unsavory connotations and no advantages that I can think of. I would prefer terms like "league", "association", or "movement". I would also like to work the word "neo" (new) into the name in some way--to distinguish us from all that has gone before under the name of "communism".

Would you make this speech to the workers in France or anywhere else and what use do you think it would be to do so?

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 16 2006, 04:56 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 16 2006, 04:56 PM)
Red Brigade
Without an organized leadership these attempts are bound to fail, unfortunately.

Why "unfortunately"? From the Leninist perspective, you want these spontaneous uprisings to "always fail", do you not?

Should people succeed in making revolution in the complete absence of your "organized leadership", where would that leave you?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif[/b]
There's no such thing as ''Leninism'' and ''Marxism'' these are terms coined by their followers, such as yourself i would assume.

Lenin and Marx would probably laugh if they could see us mentioning terms such as ''Leninism'' and ''Marxism''.

Now on your points.

I really wish these ''spontaneous'' uprising brought some results and if you think that i am content with the idea of having a ''leadership'' giving me orders then you are seriously mistaken. But you see we don't live in an ideal world and it is impossible to make a revolution without having a materialist force that will coordinate the majority. At least this is what history has proved us.

Name one successful revolution without a leadership. Even the inspirational Commune de Paris had its communards, which didn't even last more than a week.

Should i mention that your idol , Karl Marx, found it aggravating that the Communards "lost precious moments" organising democratic elections rather than instantly finishing off Versailles once and for all ?

Tell me how can so many millions of people can come to a consensus on any issue without being coordinated through smaller means during a chaotic revolution ?

Also let us not forget that our main goal is not the revolution for the sake of it but communism.

But this is only my opinion and i could be wrong. :)

The problem with the so called ''marxists'', ''leninists'' and their variants is that they are constantly arguing about the way that the revolution must be realized, since for them this is the root of all the problems.

How unfortunate that it isnt, because if it was, our movement wouldn't have been stangated as it has become.

The key to everything is that, unlike the capitalists, we lack of a developed theory and mechanism of a ''communist way'' of reproduction and distribution (of the commodities)

Until we answer this question, little matters whether we will make revolutions with vaguard parties or by ''spontaneous'' uprisings. They will all fail one by one. The first will probably become a totalitarian dictatorship while the latter one would last less than the time i need to''finish'' after having sex.

Marx and Engels gave a very good analysis of the capitalist system 150 years ago, better than the equilibrium theory of classical economics. They never though managed to give a sufficient analysis of what the mechanism of the communist system should be and this is something that we must answer.

It is high time for the so called ''marxists'' and ''leninists'' to stop being concerned with their narrow dogmatic interests about two people who died a century and so ago and create a catholic Worker's Internationale from which we will be able to develop and discuss our theories.

In order to make them understand that we are not that corpse that died for we are a specter.

[GoaRedStar]

Name one communist society.

Infact you should name one communist revolution.

[STI]

Virtual Sit-In Time! (http://bang.calit2.net/sdhacklab/france_solidarity/basta.htm)

Just load the page, then leave it. It floods the servers of French government websites... potentially slowing them down to a crawl

[вор в законе]

Name one communist society.

Infact you should name one communist revolution.

Why are you making questions that you already know the answer.

There has never been a communist society in the world.

As for the second question, how do you define a communist revolution ? By the intention
or by the result?

If the case is the first then there have been several attempts.

If the case is the second then there has never been a communist revolution and there wont be for many years yet to come.

But if you define a communist revolution by the result, wouldn't that make Che a bourgeois revolutionary ?

Unless if you believe that the Cuban Revolution brought communism...

[xprol]

Goa Red Star & Red Brigade,

Have you got any revolutionary opinions?

Why do you exist?

[GoaRedStar]

This is what you wrote


Name one successful revolution without a leadership. Even the inspirational Commune de Paris had its communards, which didn't even last more than a week.

That is the reason why I posted those two questions.

By the way why do you think there has never been a communist society in the world?

and yes I already know the answer for this one too.


As for the second question, how do you define a communist revolution ? By the intention or by the result?

I define a revolution by its results so yes I do think of Che as a bourgeois revolutionary.
Infact I consider all leninist as bourgeois revolutionary because ultimately what they achieve is a capitalist society.

[bezdomni]

Back on topic...

The french are awesome. I was in France for a week and there were two strikes.

I also saw a bunch of hammer and sickles plastered on the side of a church. The PCF (Communist Party of France) did it.

[xprol]

Can you all start describing the class struggle, as it is happening, so we can all assess your revolutionary theory?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by xprol+Mar 16 2006, 08:06 PM--> (xprol @ Mar 16 2006, 08:06 PM) Can you all start describing the class struggle, as it is happening, so we can all assess your revolutionary theory? [/b]
Perhaps this brief excerpt may suffice...


Originally posted by [email protected]

Vanguard1917
There has never in history been a better time to be born; there has never been a better time to be alive.

How the fuck would you know? I am 64; how old are you?

What's your standard of comparison?

When I was a child, my parents both worked...but they could afford to buy a reasonably spacious house, two mid-range cars, medical insurance, vacations, stuff like that. You think that's possible now?

People are indeed "living longer"...lots of them in "nursing homes" which are total shitholes.

What do more and more young working people have to "look forward to" now? They can't afford to go to college without plunging deeply into debt. Their job prospects: a bunch of shit-pay temp jobs. Lots of them can't even afford to move out of their parents' house...the rents are just too high!

At the lower end of things in America, there are people with full-time jobs who are living in their fucking cars!

Why the hell do you think so many young people in France are so pissed-off? Because the future looks "really great"? :angry:

Why not try a bit of Marxism here...if the word doesn't offend you.

What happens when an aging capitalist society approaches "the end of the line"? What do you think life "will be like"?

It will be shit! Closer to the 19th century than the 20th!

I have seen things get worse since the 1970s...with my own eyes. I see no reason whatsoever to expect any improvements and every reason to assume the decline in living standards for the working class to continue.

At this point, I would expect you to interject a load of Trotskyist babble about how we should "fight for reforms" to "stop the decline" and "make things better".

Well, you can forget that! There ain't gonna be no more "reforms". That era is over.

What there's gonna be is more and more shit from here on out...until people are ready for a revolution. And that may still be many decades into the future.


Your gloom-and-doom politics are not radical in any way...

And yours? :lol:

Want to tell us that the Bright Sun of Trotskyist Splendor is just about to rise, driving away all gloom and despair?

You should be a stock-broker. :lol:

PS: If you happen to live in the U.K. (and are feeling smug about how much better off you are than us poor yanks), see this new thread...

Blair's Education "Reform" Bill (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47438)

That's what any kid you might have has to look forward to! :angry:

Clear? :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by TragicClown
You really don't seem to know what you're talking about.

Except when I write stuff you agree with. :)

Well, who were the CEOs of the USSR, Inc.?

Lenin...from 1917; incapacated around 1922 or so (died in office 1924).

Stalin...from 1924 to 1953 (died in office).

Khrushchev...1953-1964 (died 1971).

Brezhnev...1964-1982 (died in office).

Yuri Andropov...1982-1984 (died in office).

Konstantin Chernenko...1984-1985 (died in office).

Mikhail Gorbachev...1985-1991 (Bankruptcy and Collapse).

China's Mao, Yugoslavia's Tito, Albania's Hoxha and Vietnam's Ho all died in office, of course. It appears that Cuba's Castro intends to do the same...as does his brother.

And so it goes. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by xprol+--> (xprol)What are your ideas about the economic crisis in the US and its war drive. Do you think there is any connection between this imperialist war drive and the 'riots' in France, Ireland, Italy, Australia? Do you ever discuss the world as it is?[/b]

Quite frequently.

What I do tend to avoid is the kind of "Grand Sweeping Analysis of Everything" that Leninist groups are so notorious for cranking out. Choked with almost impenetrable verbiage, permeated with incomprehensible "dialectics", concluding with platitudinous slogans...not only are they almost entirely unreadable but I cannot imagine for a moment what possible use they are to anyone.

When you stop and think about it, where is it written that we "must" have wasted tree corpses in order to make revolution?

Why write 100,000 words when a sentence or two will suffice?

Other than from a fruitless quest for reputation as a "profound thinker"?

Your questions...

1. What are your ideas about the economic crisis in the US and its war drive?

They are obviously closely related. We can reasonably expect more imperialist aggression from the United States in the coming decades.

No matter who is in the White House!

2. Do you think there is any connection between this imperialist war drive and the 'riots' in France, Ireland, Italy, Australia?

No.

Instead, I think the "riots" are simply the symptom of a growing realization that "old capitalism" is not working.

Class societies don't just "suddenly collapse"...the cracks and fissures become visible at least two or three decades ahead of the "main event".


Do you have anything to say about 'actual' unfolding events, without dreary academic slight of hand or sectarian 'take-it-or-leave-it' individualist pessimism?

Would you prefer mindless cheer-leading? There's still some people around who'll be delighted to meet your "needs" in that regard. :lol:

Try the posts of Vanguard1917...everything is "just going great" according to him.


Would you make this speech to the workers in France or anywhere else and what use do you think it would be to do so?

I am too old to do public speaking anymore and, since I don't speak French, I doubt if anyone over there would understand me. :lol:

But let's say I was at a meeting of people who wanted to talk about a new revolutionary group and how to structure it to gain the best results.

Then, I would recommend to them everything that I said in the essay from which you quoted.

Because I think the advice would be useful.


Red Brigade
I really wish these ''spontaneous'' uprisings brought some results and if you think that I am content with the idea of having a ''leadership'' giving me orders then you are seriously mistaken. But you see we don't live in an ideal world and it is impossible to make a revolution without having a materialist force that will coordinate the majority. At least this is what history has proved us.

But, you see, Leninists are not content with whatever organizational forms that the proletariat spontaneously creates in the course of an uprising.

They want to create that "materialist force" in advance and fully expect that they will be able to "use it" to run the revolution itself.

If that's not your position, then I owe you a major apology and hereby make it!


Name one successful revolution without a leadership.

Petrograd, February, 1917. It successfully overthrew the Romanov dynasty...for good!

I think the overthrow of the Kaiser in Germany and the Emperor in Austro-Hungary also took place spontaneously.

So it can be done without a "vanguard Party" in "command".


Even the inspirational Commune de Paris had its communards, which didn't even last more than a week.

The Paris Commune lasted from March 18 to May 28, 1871.


The key to everything is that, unlike the capitalists, we lack of a developed theory and mechanism of a ''communist way'' of reproduction and distribution (of the commodities).

I'm not at all sure that that is "the key to everything"...but in any event that would best be discussed in a separate thread in the Theory forum.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[TC]

Except when I write stuff you agree with.

...just because you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to socialist political history doesn't preclude you from writing decently about other issues.-_-


Stalin...from 1924 to 1953 (died in office).

Stalin wasn't premier until 1941, he was only one among a number of influencial figures in the 20s and 30s.


Khrushchev...1953-1964 (died 1971).

Khrushchev didn't come to power until 1958. Georgy Malenkov, a member of Stalin's faction, succeeded Stalin, he resigned in 1955 i favor of Nikolai Bulganin who was from the same faction (refered to by its opponents as the 'anti-party group). Khrushchev and his 'liberal faction' opposed Malenkov and Bulganin, but he only got them out of the party leadership in '57 and out of office in '58. To call Khruschev the "CEO of the Soviet Union" in 1953 shows a complete ignorance of the political history of the Soviet Union. Also the fact that he died out being democratically removed from office hardly supports your point.


Brezhnev...1964-1982 (died in office)

Brezhnev never had direct political authority, he primarily had indirect political influence. He was Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet from 60 to 64 and 77 to 82...his principle influence was always as a party leader in partnership with others, not as the 'leader' in his own right (as much as the Western powers might have wanted to portray him as such, since thats how they do it).


Yuri Andropov...1982-1984 (died in office).
Konstantin Chernenko...1984-1985 (died in office).



Uh, they died unexpectedly just a short time in office its hardly like he was clinging onto power for generations.


Mikhail Gorbachev...1985-1991 (Bankruptcy and Collapse).


Uh, not dead yet.


China's Mao, Yugoslavia's Tito, Albania's Hoxha and Vietnam's Ho all died in office, of course.

Mao, as i mentioned, lost power to Liu Shaoqi and the "capitalist roaders" in 1959 after the 'great leap forward', he died in 1976, still very politically active but out of office, acting essentially as a background part of leftwing opposition to the comparatively rightwing (by chinese communist standards) government. Ho Chi Minh died during the revolution before the Socialist Republic of Vietnam even existed so he's hardly an apt example. Tito and Hoxha died in office but they were rather weird anyways.

[Comrade-Z]

How quickly we forget the recent Parisian riots.

France lacks a mass organisation with a applicable revolutionary program, but there has been plenty of unrest among the lowest layers of the working class for years. The riots lacked any coherent goal, strategy, or program, but they were a very clear sign of unrest.

The earlier French riots did not result in anarchist/communist revolution because the participants were not interested in anarchist/communist revolution. Not even slightly. Such ideas would have struck them as crazy. I thought this was self-evident.

On the other hand, this round of mobilizations is rife with participation from individuals who are hell-bent on anarchist-communist revolution. Well, maybe that is being a bit too optimistic, but there is much more promise with this round of mobilizations.

And it is a fortunate thing that the French students and workers have not dropped to their knees for some Great Leader or Vanguard Party.

"The self-emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves."

You know who said that.

If the masses have to be led by the hand and told how to make revolution, then they aren't capable of constructing stateless classless society in the first place.

Communist revolution must be leaderless. Otherwise it is exchanging capitalist leaders for "red" leaders, and who wants that shit?

Forward, French youth, towards stateless, classless, leaderless society! :ph34r:

[TC]

Forward, French youth, towards stateless, classless, leaderless society!

Just cause you're not aware enough to know who the leaders of the french students are doesn't mean their movement like the other movements that anarchists attempt to co-opt and claim as their own are leaderless. They have leaders and an organizational structure.


Bruno Julliard is the president of the national student's union (UNEF) that organized the occupations (in case you want to accuse someone of being a power-hungry stalinist if they actually accomplish something useful).


He's actually quite quotable too:

"We have the impression the government has decided to respond to the student movement with truncheons and repression... the government wants to continue using force to wage a battle for the CPE, as Villepin says, then we are heading toward a serious conflict" Bruno Julliard to Reuters.

""The more time passes, the costlier it will become for Villepin to back-pedal when there are hundreds of thousands, even millions, of young people in the streets."-Bruno Julliard to channel i-tele

"If the government will not change its position, we note that there are a lot more of us and our troops can be a lot more numerous than last week,"-To France Inter radio

"He said that the law will be applied. My reply is that the street will speak."-to the AFP news agency.

Hot, no?

[STI]

I don't reasonably expect this round of student riots to be "another '68" or whatever... though I'd be thrilled to be wrong about that.

Instead, I expect this to be one of a series of such riots (and even small insurrections, possibly) over the next number of decades which may lead to a serious attempt at proletarian revolution.

[Xanthus]

Wow, I never expected to start such a war over that simple post, it's really shocking how many of you anarchists completely misunderstand nearly everything I, or seemingly any other Marxist has said.

I never once mentioned a communist party or anything else, merely a "mass organisation", and a "revolutionary program".


How quickly we forget the recent Parisian riots.

France lacks a mass organisation with a applicable revolutionary program, but there has been plenty of unrest among the lowest layers of the working class for years. The riots lacked any coherent goal, strategy, or program, but they were a very clear sign of unrest.

So let's take a look at what generally seems to be the favorite example of most anarchists, the Spanish Civil War.

It began when the Popular Front government was overthrown by Franco and his buddies. The Popular Front made up of mass organisations, and had roots throughout the movement. When it was overthrown, an agreeable program of defense of the government by the means of militant opposition to Franco was quite obvious, and a reletively united mass revolt began on the basis of those mass organisations and that program. The POUM, and the CNT are examples of these mass organisations. So yes, using the CNT as an example, Anarchists can have mass organisation too.

This was a very limited program, and ultimately was unable to take power in a way which was capable of making lasting changes of a type that was not easily replaced by a dictatorship afterwards, but this is not the main point I was making. The point is that the revolutionary masses were united... united by those mass organisations who all supported the Popular Front and by that simple program of opposing Franco.

Now we look at the French riots (not at present but the one last year), we see that the people were united by the fact that they had been mistreated by capitalist French society. But what were the goals? Where was the program? For each person there was a different goal. Some wanted to start a revolution (as was mentioned in the reference to the spraypaint), some wanted to steal enough stuff to (they felt) make their lives a bit better, some wanted to teach the police and the capitalists a lesson through violence, some just wanted to have fun smashing cars, and some had a different reason then any of these. There is no wonder that after a week or so of riots, they died out. There was nothing to unite the rioters.

Now we have the present example. This time is different, there is a more concrete common cause, the defense of labour rights, but this isn't as concrete of a program as the defeat of Franco, as it can have many possible routes to travel (such as revolution, or parlimentary action). This is VERY important, as the masses are not united along a revolutionary program. For many the goal is to simply get the government to change it's mind.

That being said, the students have become united in their action of protest for now through their unions (a mass organisation), and there has been some contact with mass labour organisations as well as a hand played by the Socialist Party. These are very progressive developments, and are signs of mass organisation developing in the movement, but still there is no united revolutionary program. The Socialist Party (despite their name) certainly doesn't want revolution, nor do many of the students or many of the workers.

Hopefully that all explained what I meant by a revolutionary program (provides the goal), and mass organisations (to provide the organisation needed to get there).


So I suppose this analysis involves me taking power and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat, with a Central Council, eh?

Somehow that seems different from what I said.

We Marxists (the ones who understand Marxism anyway), do not have black and white blanket solutions to any problem. We do not say that there should be in every revolution a black and white communist party, with a black and white CC, creating a black and white dictatorship of the proletariat (which, by the way, you people show an endless misunderstanding of). If that was the case, I would not be nearly so excited about Venezuela.

We analyse each situation's unique properties using our philosphical method of scientific socialism, dialectical materialism, Marxism, or whatever else you want to call it. The fact that the methods of Bolshevism were the result of that analysis in Russia doesn't mean we single-mindedly run like lemmings for those same methods everywhere.

The small part of that analysis for the example of France which I presented have nothing to do with Leninism, but are merely a couple points of what is lacking in France for "riot" to turn to "revolution". I did not even begin to touch on what would be needed for that revolution to be successful, or anything else.

It really frustrates me when you "comrades" try to simple-mindedly cram all Marxists into the little cookie-cutter patterns which you have created, and even more frustrating when some who call themselves Marxists willingly fit themselves into the same cookie-cutters.

[encephalon]

Originally posted by "Red Brigade"
It is high time for the so called ''marxists'' and ''leninists'' to stop being concerned with their narrow dogmatic interests about two people who died a century and so ago and create a catholic Worker's Internationale from which we will be able to develop and discuss our theories. (my bold)

Wait.. wha..? catholic as in universal or catholic as in Catholicism?

If it's the former.. that's a really bad term to use in a forum like this. If it's the latter.. come the fuck again?

[VukBZ2005]

My own view on this: It has been obvious that right now, the current anti-CPE protests, riots and blockages throughout the territority of France have no revolutionary pretensions at the present moment in time. But that is because many still think that the government would listen to their demands and rescind the CPE through their direct action.

I was watching France 2 on satellite a few days ago and a university student was saying that that he was tired of the government not listening to the protesters and began to throw and aim rocks and stones at the CRS because of that.

What is the use of the example? It shows that many are getting tired of just protesting, and having to defend themselves from CRS-allowed fascists and if this continues for a prolong period time and by that I mean that the if government continues to ignore these demands, it could start to wake people up to the reality that surrounds the decisions of the ruling class these days: Capitalism can not afford to remove such laws anymore - and even if they could afford to move away from that law, the material conditions in France are too unstable for that.

I do not know what is going to happen. But I feel this could turn into something greater if the current impasse continues.

[Comrade-Z]

Just cause you're not aware enough to know who the leaders of the french students are doesn't mean their movement like the other movements that anarchists attempt to co-opt and claim as their own are leaderless. They have leaders and an organizational structure.

Yes, and I am encouraging them to move beyond that and settle for nothing less than permanent dismantling of the state apparatus and all power to the students and the working class.

Organizational structure is fine, as long as it is ultra-democratic. "Influential militants" are fine. But when the leaders are endowed with the power of command--that is unacceptable, and I am encouraging them to move beyond this, and encouraging others to encourage them likewise.