Paris 1968, why isn't most riots like it?

[Psy]

There are many times when people get so angry that they take to the streets, but why is most of the times they riot like its just a sports riot (that is they just loot and riot indiscriminately to no real end)?

Why in Paris May 1968 did anger over police brutality grow into a organized uprising against capitalism while other incidents end up in just dead end riots? Why in Paris May 1968 people occupied while in most riots rioters just destroy and loot?

Is it just a lack of class consciousness? But in 1968 there was no real revolutionary parties in Paris and most workers were not unionized so what went right with May 1968 in Paris?

[Lamanov]

Because May 1968 was not a "riot" - typical for life in capitalist society, i. e. sports fans - but a political movement - albeit mostly "spontaneous" one.

It was caused by political and social conflict, one of which the people were mostly aware.

Of course, Night of the Barricades and the whole Quartier Latin battle looked allot like all other "riots", but the fact that it was continued by general strike and factory occupation gives it a new dimension.

There was a great deal of class consciousness in France at that time. In Nantes, where things were taken the furthest, political atmosphere was most radical one (trotskyist and class anarchist nucleus in regional section of FO, workers in FO who were adherents to revolutionary syndicalism, pro-situationist section of UNEF in Nantes, etc.).

[Psy]

Because May 1968 was not a "riot" - typical for life in capitalist society, i. e. sports fans - but a political movement - albeit mostly "spontaneous" one.

It was caused by political and social conflict, one of which the people were mostly aware.

Of course, Night of the Barricades and the whole Quartier Latin battle looked allot like all other "riots", but the fact that it was continued by general strike and factory occupation gives it a new dimension.

There was a great deal of class consciousness in France at that time. In Nantes, where things were taken the furthest, political atmosphere was most radical one (trotskyist and class anarchist nucleus in regional section of FO, workers in FO who were adherents to revolutionary syndicalism, pro-situationist section of UNEF in Nantes, etc.).

The thing is the Quartier Latin battle didn't look like the US riots sparked by police brutality against blacks like Detroit in 1967 and Rochester in 1964, sure they looked the same at first but once the police retreated in Detroit and Rochester the rioters degenerated to looting and destruction of property, alienating the rioters from the community that is the exact opposite of what happened in Paris.

[Lamanov]

Well, actually, Quartier Latin was re-taken by the police on May 11th. Occupations started in Sud Aviation on 14th.

I'm not sure about USA, but there's another example where there was no looting: Hungary 1956. Anyway, every case is different, because there are certain specific factors that give them their own shape.

[Psy]

Well, actually, Quartier Latin was re-taken by the police on May 11th. Occupations started in Sud Aviation on 14th.

I'm not sure about USA, but there's another example where there was no looting: Hungary 1956. Anyway, every case is different, because there are certain specific factors that give them their own shape.
US riots usually follow the same script, basically lumpen oppressed by the bourgeoisie society, enraged by the brutality bourgeoisie state, take their anger out on the petite-bourgeoisie. Of course now that the petite-bourgeoisie has much less of a presence I think the next major US riot will have rioters attacking bourgeoisie property, still fire-bombing Wal-Marts doesn't exactly advance class struggle.

[BIG BROTHER]

Well, I think that the reason why the Paris riots went different than riots in the us and such is first that it all started with pretty conscious students protesting for more freedom in their schools, so you know they weren't mad that their favorite soccer team lost, they actually had a goal and a reason.

Also more importantly the working class, after seen the brutality that the French govt used against the students who were you know just wanting to improve their education, and have more freedom in their colleges, joined the movement and the students. And as we know the working class is the most revolutionary class.

[Psy]

Well, I think that the reason why the Paris riots went different than riots in the us and such is first that it all started with pretty conscious students protesting for more freedom in their schools, so you know they weren't mad that their favorite soccer team lost, they actually had a goal and a reason.

Also more importantly the working class, after seen the brutality that the French govt used against the students who were you know just wanting to improve their education, and have more freedom in their colleges, joined the movement and the students. And as we know the working class is the most revolutionary class.

So the next question is then why are lumpen uprisings not as revolutionary? In the late 60's the US ghettos exploded one after another in armed riots, with black Vietnam veterans returning to the unemployment and poverty of the black ghettos refusing to put up with the bullshit of the police. These uprisings had a hell of a lot of force behind them, yet not only was this force totally uncoordinated but it lashed out against local petite-bourgeoisie and smashed property rather occupying property.

Also what can we do make lumpen more revolutionary?

[Yehuda Stern]

But in 1968 there was no real revolutionary parties in Paris and most workers were not unionized so what went right with May 1968 in Paris?

But most things did not go right. With all due respect to the heroism of French workers that year, the revolution was defeated exactly because no revolutionary leadership existed in France at the time. 1968 is a great example of how even the most ample revolutionary opportunities are wasted without a Leninist party capable of building itself as the leadership of the workers.

[Annie K.]

It is interesting to note that many of the most prominant thinkers of mai 68 thought that the actions of the lumpen in paris or in the US ghettos were far more revolutionnary than the students. Particularly because they dared to attack property, to lead the contradictions of capitalism to their end.
Don't overestimate the consciousness of the students of 68. They were in their majority still clinging to their symbolic privileges. Even the moaists who decided after 68 to quit their universities and to start working in factories, "as they knew the working class is the most revolutionary class".


[...]The Los Angeles rebellion was a rebellion against the commodity, against the world of the commodity in which worker-consumers are hierarchically subordinated to commodity standards. Like the young delinquents of all the advanced countries, but more radically because they are part of a class without a future, a sector of the proletariat unable to believe in any significant chance of integration or promotion, the Los Angeles blacks take modern capitalist propaganda, its publicity of abundance, literally. They want to possess now all the objects shown and abstractly accessible, because they want to use them. In this way they are challenging their exchange-value, the commodity reality which molds them and marshals them to its own ends, and which has preselected everything. Through theft and gift they rediscover a use that immediately refutes the oppressive rationality of the commodity, revealing its relations and even its production to be arbitrary and unnecessary. The looting of the Watts district was the most direct realization of the distorted principle: “To each according to their false needs” — needs determined and produced by the economic system which the very act of looting rejects.[...]
Here (http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/decline.html)'s the entire text in english, but it seems italics are sometimes misplaced. I still recommend everyone to read it.


Also what can we do make lumpen more revolutionary?Join them in the streets when it is possible. An isolated riot will eventually be repressed or extinguish itself. If all exterior groups, from the most reactionnary to the most revolutionnary consider that "it's nothing but a recreation", the rioters will end up believing that too. That's the case in france.

[Lamanov]

With all due respect to the heroism of French workers that year, the revolution was defeated exactly because no revolutionary leadership existed in France at the time. 1968 is a great example of how even the most ample revolutionary opportunities are wasted without a Leninist party capable of building itself as the leadership of the workers.

1968 does prove the need for a revolutionary organisation, but certainly not a Leninist one. It proves a need not for revolutionary "leaders", but for revolutionary workers organised in workplace based class-struggle organisations.

[Annie K.]

the revolution was defeated exactly because no revolutionary leadership existed in France at the timeMore exactly, because a counterrevolutionary leadership existed at the time. It proves that the leninist organisations tends to prefer the preservation of their power over the revolutionary classes better than the preservation of the revolutionary actions of these classes.

[Decolonize The Left]

More exactly, because a counterrevolutionary leadership existed at the time. It proves that the leninist organisations tends to prefer the preservation of their power over the revolutionary classes better than the preservation of the revolutionary actions of these classes.

I'm not sure if the problem even had to do with leadership. It is not a matter of the protesters lacking leadership, many councils were formed; or the counter-revolutionaries having leadership, they were vastly outnumbered. It's a matter of the people involved not understanding the larger scheme of revolt. Each group was either supporting another, or revolting over one issue or another. There was no real class consciousness among the majority of protesters. Leadership isn't necessary when the people understand their situation - they are capable of handling it themselves.

- August

[Lamanov]

For a given amount of time needed for things to escalate, I think there was quite enough developed class consciousness. This is not the main issue. There were several problems: 1) strategic one - the state was ignored, just like in 1936 - people went along with the "Movement", creating "autogestion" step by step, but giving the counterrevolution enough space to consolidate itself; 2) the role of the CGT and PCF in suppressing the movement in the large factories was a key issue - they broke up the movement and reduced its main sections to a state of passivity in pursuit for pure quantitative achievements.

The working class of France was missing an organised counter-balance. Students reaching workers at the factory gates or working with individual workers in action committees was not enough for occupation movement to radicalize. Workers organised in class-struggle groups based in the workplaces was a precondition for the radicalization of the movement. The example of Nantes - the place where people took the greatest initiative - is a striking one: the local section of FO was built on workers who were adherents of revolutionary syndicalism, with allot of trotskyist and class-anarchist militants were active within the workplaces (like Sud Aviation and ABC).

[BIG BROTHER]

I'm not sure if the problem even had to do with leadership. It is not a matter of the protesters lacking leadership, many councils were formed; or the counter-revolutionaries having leadership, they were vastly outnumbered. It's a matter of the people involved not understanding the larger scheme of revolt. Each group was either supporting another, or revolting over one issue or another. There was no real class consciousness among the majority of protesters. Leadership isn't necessary when the people understand their situation - they are capable of handling it themselves.

- August

The fact that they created councils shows that they had enough consciousness. Sadly enough, there wasn't a vanguard party to guide the masses, but the consciousness of the workers was enough.

[Decolonize The Left]

The fact that they created councils shows that they had enough consciousness. Sadly enough, there wasn't a vanguard party to guide the masses, but the consciousness of the workers was enough.

The workers created few councils... the students, on the other hand, created many.

A vanguard party is not the solution to everything, in fact, it may be a problem.

- August

[Annie K.]

You are right, augustwest. Leadership isn't necessary. The fact that the CGT and the PCF had a certain control of the movement was not the problem, it was the visble aspect of the problem.

The fact that the councils were dissoluted in the following period shows that the level of consciousness of the workers as a whole was not sufficient.

[Annie K.]

1) strategic one - the state was ignored, just like in 1936 - people went along with the "Movement", creating "autogestion" step by step, but giving the counterrevolution enough space to consolidate itself... What should have they done according to you ? taken the National Assembly ? organized an armed struggle ?
I don't really see any strategic alternative to what have been done, which would have changed the history.

[Psy]

... What should have they done according to you ? taken the National Assembly ? organized an armed struggle ?
I don't really see any strategic alternative to what have been done, which would have changed the history.

Look at the ghetto uprisings of the late 60's, in Detroit '67 were rioters fucked up the National Guard and it took the 82nd Airborne two whole days to crush the riots of '67 even with helicopter and armor units. Remember this was just the disposed blacks fighting, think what would have happened if the Detroit workers joined them (and if they focused all their energy on fighting the state instead of also on destruction of property) so yhea do I think armed struggle in Paris May 1968 was what was called for.

[BIG BROTHER]

The workers created few councils... the students, on the other hand, created many.

A vanguard party is not the solution to everything, in fact, it may be a problem.

- August

Do you have any proof that the students created more councils than the workers?

And actually all that was needed to overthrow capitalism during those days, was for the communist party of France to accept its leadership and take power, but they didn't.

[RHIZOMES]

Do you have any proof that the students created more councils than the workers?

And actually all that was needed to overthrow capitalism during those days, was for the communist party of France to accept its leadership and take power, but they didn't.

They were too scared of what would happen if it failed, De Gaulle actually banned left groups that had partaken in May 68.


It proves that the leninist organisations tends to prefer the preservation of their power over the revolutionary classes better than the preservation of the revolutionary actions of these classes.

I disagree. It proves that KHRUSCHEVITE organisations tend to prefer the preservation of their power. I think a large part of the PCF's betrayal had to do with Khruschev adopting that bullshit "peaceful coexistence" line.

[Annie K.]

Psy, you forget that students and workers were not prepared for an armed struggle, and most of them did not thought that civil war was an acceptable strategy.
On this point there is a real betrayal of the PCF leaders, who accepted the proposition of De Gaulle to allow Maurice Thorez back from Moscow and the participation of the party in the post-war union governments in exchange of the disarmament of the resistance. But that was twenty years earlier.

josefrancisco, the only leadership the pcf could claim at that time was of the return to law and order. The bureaucrats at its head did not want nor could take power, because of the "nature de classe" (how is it called in english ?) of the power of course, but also because the revolutionary groups of students and workers would have destroyed any authoritarian organisation of this kind if they had been given the opportunity to do so. And it's difficult to lead a revolution of impotents.

AB, it proves that leninist organisations tend to become khrutschevist organizations in non-antagonistic times. The PCF in 1968 did not betray anyone, as no conscious one trusted it to do anything else than it did. It had good reasons to act this way, and they were well-known. If the orders of the politburo had changed, the PCF would not have been able to follow them.

[Bilan]

Check out Brintons notes from the Paris 68 uprising (of which he was at). It'll become starkly clear. ;)
Also, Obsolete Communism by Cohn-Bendit will also outline it.

[Psy]

Psy, you forget that students and workers were not prepared for an armed struggle, and most of them did not thought that civil war was an acceptable strategy.

This is where the US ghetto uprisings were ahead of Paris May 1968, the ghetto uprisings even though not having the support the working class had serious armed defenses.

[BIG BROTHER]

Psy, you forget that students and workers were not prepared for an armed struggle, and most of them did not thought that civil war was an acceptable strategy.
On this point there is a real betrayal of the PCF leaders, who accepted the proposition of De Gaulle to allow Maurice Thorez back from Moscow and the participation of the party in the post-war union governments in exchange of the disarmament of the resistance. But that was twenty years earlier.

josefrancisco, the only leadership the pcf could claim at that time was of the return to law and order. The bureaucrats at its head did not want nor could take power, because of the "nature de classe" (how is it called in english ?) of the power of course, but also because the revolutionary groups of students and workers would have destroyed any authoritarian organisation of this kind if they had been given the opportunity to do so. And it's difficult to lead a revolution of impotents.

AB, it proves that leninist organisations tend to become khrutschevist organizations in non-antagonistic times. The PCF in 1968 did not betray anyone, as no conscious one trusted it to do anything else than it did. It had good reasons to act this way, and they were well-known. If the orders of the politburo had changed, the PCF would not have been able to follow them.

exatly, the leadership sucked, i mark my point, the only thing that was needed during the may 68 uprisings was a vanguard party.

and in my opinion the French communist party was pretty much a stanlinist server of Moscow so yea no surprise that they didn't do nothing.

[Lamanov]

I think a large part of the PCF's betrayal had to do with Khruschev adopting that bullshit "peaceful coexistence" line.

Yes, nothing like PCE and PSUC stopping the revolution in Spain in 1937 or PCI stopping the revolution in Italy in 1944. Idiot.

[Psy]

exatly, the leadership sucked, i mark my point, the only thing that was needed during the may 68 uprisings was a vanguard party.

and in my opinion the French communist party was pretty much a stanlinist server of Moscow so yea no surprise that they didn't do nothing.

No, what May 1968 needed was a armed defense force. The workers were doing fine organizing their workplaces and communities, what was really needed was leadership over the defense of the revolution gains.

[BIG BROTHER]

No, what May 1968 needed was a armed defense force. The workers were doing fine organizing their workplaces and communities, what was really needed was leadership over the defense of the revolution gains.

A vanguard party does that type of stuff too.

[Unicorn]

Yes, nothing like PCE and PSUC stopping the revolution in Spain in 1937 or PCI stopping the revolution in Italy in 1944. Idiot.
What is this crap again? Forces under PCE leadership achieved the best military successes of the Spanish revolution winning the Battle of Guadalajara.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Battle:_Battle_of_Guadalajara

[Annie K.]

Revolution and civil war were two different things.

[Unicorn]

Revolution and civil war were two different things.
The Spanish revolution was defeated militarily by the Fascist armies of Franco, Germany and Italy.

[Psy]

Revolution and civil war were two different things.

You can't have revolution without armed struggle, at least the lumpen understands that the state will never go down without a fight, even if Paris May 1968 held together longer eventually they would have had to repel the French army.

[darktidus]

The Spanish revolution was defeated militarily by the Fascist armies of Franco, Germany and Italy.

The Spanish Republic was defeated militarily by the Fascist armies, the revolution was destroyed by the Spanish Communist Party and their masters in Moscow - the fanatical worshippers of great genius Stalin.

[Unicorn]

The Spanish Republic was defeated militarily by the Fascist armies, the revolution was destroyed by the Spanish Communist Party and their masters in Moscow - the fanatical worshippers of great genius Stalin.
The Soviet Union delivered the tanks and planes which at least gave the Spanish revolutionaries a chance to fight against Fascists with tactical success.

Franco had tanks and planes delivered by Fascist Germany and Italy. There was no hope of winning without Communist leadership and Soviet assistance.

[Lamanov]

Wow, Unicorn, you can't tell war from revolution. :rolleyes:

[Unicorn]

Wow, Unicorn, you can't tell war from revolution. :rolleyes:
If the war is lost all gains of the revolution are gone anyway. They have a strong connection.

[Annie K.]

the tanks and planes which at least gave the Spanish revolutionaries a chance to fightNot the revolutionnaries, the republican army.


You can't have revolution with armed struggleI assume you meant "without". Yes, you're right. But you can have revolution without civil war or massive violences : 1789, 1830, 1848 in france, 1917 in russia...

It is the living people who can build communism, not the dead soldiers.

[Annie K.]

If the war is lost all gains of the revolution are gone anyway. They have a strong connection.We don't fight to be in history books. I would rather die standing than die on my knees.

[Unicorn]

Not the revolutionnaries, the republican army.
As the Republican army was crushed the revolution was crushed.



I assume you meant "without". Yes, you're right. But you can have revolution without civil war or massive violences : 1789, 1830, 1848 in france, 1917 in russia...
Umm... read up.

[Annie K.]

No. The revolutionnaries were incapacited before the collapse of the republican army. You seem to be a marxist. You should then understand the difference between the proletariat and the army.

Read what ?

____________________
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/iron.html

[Psy]

I assume you meant "without".

Yes I meant without.



Yes, you're right. But you can have revolution without civil war or massive violences : 1789, 1830, 1848 in france, 1917 in russia...

It is the living people who can build communism, not the dead soldiers.

Maybe you should read up history. How can one build communism when occupied by the state? The French army was being deployed in the tail end of the events of Paris May 1968, what do you think they were being deployed for, like the Detroit riots of July 1967 the army was there to take the streets by force.

[Annie K.]

The state is not an autonomous force. Destroy its army is not the only way to seize or to destroy it.

The french army was deployed not to fight, but to frighten. De gaulle could not afford to make a single death in the students and workers ranks if he wanted to keep control over the situation, and to keep what he really cared about : his place in the history books. He never seriously intented to take the streets by force of arms. He thought, and he was right, that a vote "between he and the chaos" would turn in his advantage and would be sufficient to decourage the movement.

The history is full of old and desesperate men who risk the entire system in order to preserve their crown.

[Psy]

The state is not an autonomous force. Destroy its army is not the only way to seize or to destroy it

The state is even autonomous from the bourgeoisie goverment, just look at the Venezuelan military coup.



The french army was deployed not to fight, but to frighten. De gaulle could not afford to make a single death in the students and workers ranks if he wanted to keep control over the situation, and to keep what he really cared about : his place in the history books. He never seriously intented to take the streets by force of arms. He thought, and he was right, that a vote "between he and the chaos" would turn in his advantage and would be sufficient to decourage the movement.

The history is full of old and desesperate men who risk the entire system in order to preserve their crown.

Maybe but eventually the French army would go in to restore bourgeois order if everything failed. Even if De Gaulle refused to resort to violence the CIA would have eventually have staged a military coup and replaced him with a fascist puppet willing to do what is necessary to defend their interests.

[Annie K.]

The state is even autonomous from the bourgeoisie goverment, just look at the Venezuelan military coup. What is to be seen about that ?


Maybe but eventually the French army would in to restore bourgeois order if everything failed. Even if De Gaulle refused to resort to violence the CIA would have eventually have staged a military coup and replaced him with a fascist puppet willing to do what is necessary to defend their interests.I don't think the CIA could stage a coup in west europe like in south america, and even there it fail sometimes.
But anyway, it was not needed.
The capitalism has not less contradictions than the revolutionary movement. If this one can be brought down without a slaughter, the other can too.

[Psy]

What is to be seen about that ?

That Chavez the head of the Venezuelan government was kidnapped by Venezuelan state. Or what about the fact the FBI and CIA both deal drugs with little concern of the interests of the US President, all they care about is skimming profits from the mobs.




I don't think the CIA could stage a coup in west europe like in south america, and even there it fail sometimes.
But anyway, it was not needed.
The capitalism has not less contradictions than the revolutionary movement. If this one can be brought down without a slaughter, the other can too.
May 1968 was deteriorating the power of the French goverment, eventually the French state would wonder why they should take orders from such a weak institution and all the CIA would have had to do is back fascist officers in the French army.

[Annie K.]

That Chavez the head of the Venezuelan government was kidnapped by Venezuelan state.Woah, it's the first time of my life that I can use this expression : what the fuck ?
Chavez was not kidnapped by the venezuelan state, but by a faction of the reactionary forces. How could a state act on its own ?


May 1968 was deteriorating the power of the French goverment, eventually the French state would wonder why they should take orders from such a weak institution and all the CIA would have had to do is back fascist officers in the French army.What is that state you talk about ? The police ? the army ? the officials ? All of them take orders and obey, with at the time the exception of the draft, which limited the powers of the army.

[Psy]

Woah, it's the first time of my life that I can use this expression : what the fuck ?
Chavez was not kidnapped by the venezuelan state, but by a faction of the reactionary forces. How could a state act on its own ?

What do you call police opening up protesters to cause an excuse for the coup? What do you call the Air Force threatening Chavez to step down or they will bomb the palace?

If you want a better example Pinochet had full control of the Chilean military during his coup.



What is that state you talk about ? The police ? the army ? the officials ? All of them take orders and obey, with at the time the exception of the draft, which limited the powers of the army.
This is a myth, the state is a power onto itself, this is how the CIA, FBI and police get officers involved in the drug trade even though the White House officially condemns it. This also explain why Lee Harvey Oswald was on the pay role of both the CIA and FBI during the assassination of JFK.

[rebelworker]

Ok this thread is wandering a bit.

If anyone is interested in a better moderated site check out anarchistblackcat.org

back to topic.

The French working class was not ready for revolution, although they did take a huge first step by occupying the factories they were not prepared to resist the union burocracy, largely represented by the Communist Party, never mind go past that and organise mass armed self defence.

An organisation of advanced layers of militantsa is needed, though I would argue that a centralised party is not.

The strength of the French movement was the fact that it was organised from the ground up, but organic leadership (shop floor leaders) and plant to plant, city to city networking needed to be developed.

Also the students needed to have a pre existing channel of communication with the workers on the shop floor to avoid some of the most simple manipulation coming from the communist party.

A united student and workers movement might have gone farther.


If i must reply to Spain, the revolution was crushed before the military defeat of the republican army. This is very clear from any on the ground accounts.

I continue to hear how the Authoritarian Stalinist/middle class army was more effective than the militias (who clearly needed some work), but how did they go again?

There is no evidence that equally equipped revolutionary militia units were less effective in the long term than the Republican army. The Facists were far better trained and equipped, sadly thats where the story ended...