Anarchy 89/I am a megaphone - Revision history

imported>Ivanhoe at 00:55, 18 April 2018

2018-04-18T00:55:07Z

Show changes

172.103.242.148 at 02:07, 14 April 2018

2018-04-14T02:07:10Z

172.103.242.148 at 02:01, 14 April 2018

2018-04-14T02:01:57Z

172.103.242.148 at 00:59, 14 April 2018

2018-04-14T00:59:04Z

imported>Ivanhoe at 22:35, 9 April 2018

2018-04-09T22:35:06Z

imported>Ivanhoe at 17:54, 9 April 2018

2018-04-09T17:54:12Z

imported>Ivanhoe: Created page with "{{header | title = ANARCHY 89 (Vol 8 No. 7) JULY 1968
I am a megaphone | author = Daniel Cohn-Bendit | section = | previous = ../Overtaken by ev..."

2018-04-09T07:05:45Z

Created page with "{{header | title = [[../|ANARCHY 89 (Vol 8 No. 7) JULY 1968]]<br>I am a megaphone | author = Daniel Cohn-Bendit | section = | previous = ../Overtaken by ev..."

New page

{{header
| title = [[../|ANARCHY 89 (Vol 8 No. 7) JULY 1968]]<br>I am a megaphone
| author = Daniel Cohn-Bendit
| section =
| previous = [[../Overtaken by events: a Paris journal|Overtaken by events]]
| next = [[../Whitsun in the streets|Whitsun in the streets]]
| notes = <div style="text-align:justify;">''DANIEL COHN-BENDIT{{s}} views are included, not because we wish to add to the personality cult built up by the press and TV around him, which he has continually repudiated, but because his was the most consistently anarchist voice to be reported. The'' 22''nd March Movement from {{w|Nanterre|Paris_Nanterre_University}} was a combination of the Nanterre Anarchist Group with several other left student{{s|r}} groups. The important statement by the Nanterre Anarchist Group on attitudes to the {{w|Vietnam War|Vietnam_War}}, {{qq|National Liberation or Class War?}} was printed in'' {{sc|freedom}} ''for February'' 24, 1968, ''in a translation by Bob Blakeman.'' (''Copies available from Freedom Press for'' 9''d. inc. postage.'')</div>
}}

<div style="max-width:500px; margin:auto; text-align:justify;">

{{p|214}}<font size="5">'''I am a megaphone'''</font>

<font size="4">'''[[Author:Daniel Cohn-Bendit|DANIEL COHN-BENDIT]]'''</font>

'''{{w|St. Nazaire|Saint-Nazaire}}, May 18th'''

{{sc|If you say}} the students are sons of bourgeois you are right. But a minority of them have made a complete break with their class. They are ready to join up with the workers, the peasants, the students; on the other, the bourgeois. The bourgeois will not fight in the streets. And their police are tied down in {{w|Paris}}. There are not enough of them to go round. The first phase of the advanced struggle we are leading must be the occupation of the factories. Then the setting up of revolutionary councils. We must find new forms of management. We must be masters of the means of production. Equality of wages{{dash}}that is very important. Wages must be equal in an egalitarian society.

{{tab}}It is not a question of attacking the {{w|trade union movement|Labour_movement}}, but of creating the conditions for a worker{{s|r}} democracy, where each, whatever his slogans or banners, can have his say. I attack the leaders of the union organisations, I do not attack the ordinary union member. Unity of the labour movement will be achieved by the young. Shop by shop the young unionists must unite. Unity won{{t}} come from the top.

'''{{w|Frankfurt}}, May 23rd'''

''Q'':&emsp;How do you describe your political position?

''A'':&emsp;Basically I am an anarchist … a {{w|Marxist-<wbr>anarchist|Libertarian_Marxism}}.

{{p|215}}''Q'':&emsp;Some journalists have described you as the leader of the revolution …

''A'':&emsp;Let them write their rubbish. These people will never be able to understand that the student movement doesn{{t}} need any chiefs. I am neither a leader nor a professional revolutionary. I am simply a mouthpiece, a {{w|megaphone|Megaphone}}.

''Q'':&emsp;What is the reason for your expulsion from {{w|France}}?

''A'':&emsp;I don{{t}} begin to understand why {{w|de Gaulle|Charles_de_Gaulle}} had me expelled. Can he really be so stupid?

''Q'':&emsp;You talk as if you have a personal hatred for General de Gaulle. …

''A'':&emsp;It is a tactic, naturally. Above all to defend myself against the accusations of the {{w|Party|French_Communist_Party}}, which wants to pass me off as an {{w|agent-<wbr>provocateur|Agent_provocateur}} of the regime. And this is because at the moment they do not want de Gaulle to be defeated.

''Q'':&emsp;Would you support a Popular Front?

''A'':&emsp;A Popular Front at the moment would be an extremely positive step in clarifying the situation: the masses would end up by understanding better the nature of the trade-<wbr>union bureaucracy and the traditional working-<wbr>class parties and then an alternative on the left of the {{w|Communist Party|French_Communist_Party}} could very easily be formed.

''Q'':&emsp;Isn{{t}} that a little bit of an over-<wbr>simplification?

''A'':&emsp;Not at all. Look, there are two extreme possibilities: on the one hand the victory of a fascist-<wbr>type reaction and the relative defeat of the {{w|proletariat|Proletariat}} for at least a decade. On the other hand there might be the development of a situation like that in {{w|Russia}} at the beginning of this century: {{w|1905|1905_Russian_Revolution}} or else {{w|February 1917|February_Revolution}}. If it turns out to be a February 1917 situation, say we have a so-<wbr>called Popular Front with a {{w|Kerensky|Alexander_Kerensky}} by the name of {{w|Mitterrand|François_Mitterrand}} or {{w|Waldeck-<wbr>Rochet|Waldeck_Rochet}}. Certainly there is no shortage of {{w|Mensheviks|Mensheviks}}: the difficulty is to find any {{w|Bolsheviks|Bolsheviks}}!

''Q'':&emsp;But is it possible to have a French revolution in a vacuum?

''A'':&emsp;No. The revolution in one country is certainly not feasible. Also from an economic point of view. An economic crisis, caused for example by social conflict, cannot remain isolated in one country. Or a financial crisis, a dollar crisis, transcends as you know, all countries. The system is international. However we have to begin by undermining each particular part of it, and in Paris that{{s}} what we have begun. In Paris the situation could truly be described as pre-<wbr>revolutionary.

{| style="text-align:justify; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-collapse:collapse; float:right; margin-left: 10px; width: 50%;" cellpadding="4"
|-
| <font size="2">'''View from the {{w|East|Eastern_Bloc}}'''

{{tab}}''Daniel Cohn-Bendit and his allies are werewolves splitting the progressive movement against capitalism.''

<div style="text-align: right;">{{dash}}{{sc|{{w|pravda|Pravda}}}}, 30.5.68.</div></font>
|}
''Q'':&emsp;What is the role of the Communist Party in all this?

''A'':&emsp;The Party is one of the two power-<wbr>structures which at the moment are propping each other up. De Gaulle and his State on the one {{p|216}}hand, the Party and the Unions on the other. De Gaulle is on the defensive, and he is defending his position of power in the State. The Party is on the defensive because it is obliged to defend its position of power within the working-<wbr>class movement. Our action, by contrast, is offensive: that is its advantage. All these intermediate and transitory objectives arising from the present situation, all the strong pressures from below, are pushing away at the old structures of power. You know, in this situation, the Party hasn{{t}} very much will to take the reins of the bourgeois state into its hands. {{w|Moscow|Leonid_Brezhnev}} is certainly against it: they have very much more reliance on the {{w|General|Charles_de_Gaulle}} than on the little bureaucrats of the French Communist Party.

''Q'':&emsp;Consequently a Popular Front would detach the masses from the party?

''A'':&emsp;Yes, that{{s}} more or less the idea, but don{{t}} forget that in reality the whole thing is very much more complex. The existence of the Party is an objective reality, one can{{t}} decide from one day to another to eliminate it. It is thanks to the Party and the {{w|CGT|General_Confederation_of_Labour_(France)}} that the concept of the class-<wbr>struggle has kept its significance in the working-<wbr>class consciousness. Our accomplishment will be to make conscious the divisions which exist between the declarations of the Party and its actual reformist politics. In the struggles of the last few days we have made enormous strides.

''Q'':&emsp;But the workers haven{{t}} let you enter the factories.

''A'':&emsp;It{{s}} not true. The functionaries of the Party have only partially succeeded in closing the factory gates on us. They have had to do this so as not to lose their position of power, but this has cost them and is going to cost them a great deal.

''Q'':&emsp;Do you think of the student movement as a {{w|new International|Fifth_International}}?

''A'':&emsp;At the moment there are individual contacts and group contacts on an international level, but it is not yet possible to speak of common action. Action is born from below, from the actual situation. It{{s}} just the same as in the struggle against capitalism.

''Q'':&emsp;Are you thinking, then, of intensifying contact?

''A'':&emsp;Certainly, but that is not the central problem. Co-<wbr>ordination would be a positive gain, but a Student International doesn{{t}} interest me. It doesn{{t}} interest me at all. What we need to form is a new revolutionary left, of which the student movement would be a component. Otherwise the student movement will remain isolated, within the limits of a movement of protest. But we may already be overcoming this. In France, in {{w|Italy}}, and to some extent in {{w|Germany|West_Germany}}, there are already links with the working class, even if they are only at a local level.

''Q'':&emsp;What do you think will be the organisational form of the new revolutionary movement?

''A'':&emsp;It isn{{t}} yet possible to say. … We are creating groups at the bottom: workers and students who collaborate for local action. But I don{{t}} think it{{s}} possible to be more precise than this.

''Q'':&emsp;Perhaps they are already Bolsheviks of the new revolution, perhaps they have already decided to institute the {{w|dictatorship of the proletariat|Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat}}?

''A'':&emsp;No, not the dictatorship of the proletariat. We are against ''all'' authority.
</div>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Reflections on the revolution in france}}
[[Category:Anarchist history]]
[[Category:Labour and industry]]
[[Category:Protest]]
[[Category:Strikes]]
[[Category:Student movements]]
[[Category:Articles]]
[[Category:Clippings from other publications]]

@@ Line 166: / Line 166: @@
 {{p|220}}{{tab}}Now we aren{{t}} proph&shy;ets, you know. And far from being ideal&shy;ists, we say we are the real&shy;ists. We say no&shy;body knows where we are going. {{w|John&shy;son|Lyndon_B._Johnson}} doesn{{t}} know where he is going. {{w|Wilson|Harold_Wilson}} doesn{{t}} know either. Wilson has changed his eco&shy;nomic policy three times in 12 months. The dis&shy;il&shy;lu&shy;sion&shy;ment, of course, is with the Com&shy;mun&shy;ist and the capit&shy;al&shy;ist sys&shy;tems. What we pro&shy;pose is very dif&shy;fi&shy;cult for people to under&shy;stand. People don{{t}} have a pre&shy;dis&shy;posi&shy;tion to order, they are edu&shy;cated to it. They be&shy;lieve that some&shy;one some&shy;where makes de&shy;ci&shy;sions on their behalf, some&shy;one leads them, and they also firmly be&shy;lieve that there has to be a cen&shy;tral struc&shy;ture of au&shy;thor&shy;ity. Our prob&shy;lem is to prove they are wrong. There does not have to be an order as we know it now. This has al&shy;ready been shown in the take&shy;over of the uni&shy;vers&shy;it&shy;ies. &hellip;
+Reflections on the revolution in france
-{{tab}}The prob&shy;lem every&shy;where is how to get an in&shy;dus&shy;trial so&shy;ciety to a tech&shy;no&shy;lo&shy;gical so&shy;ciety. This gap is dif&shy;fi&shy;cult. There are two pos&shy;sibil&shy;it&shy;ies: the tech&shy;no&shy;cratic answer or the re&shy;volu&shy;tion&shy;ary answer. The re&shy;volu&shy;tion&shy;ary answer is to give another so&shy;cial struc&shy;ture to so&shy;ciety. It does not mean the tear&shy;ing down of every&shy;thing.
+{{tab}}The prob&shy;lem every&shy;where is how to get an in&shy;dus&shy;trial so&shy;ciety to a tech&shy;no&shy;lo&shy;gical so&shy;ciety. This gap is dif&shyReflections on the revolution in france;fi&shy;cult. There are two pos&shy;sibil&shy;it&shy;ies: the tech&shy;no&shy;cratic answer or the re&shy;volu&shy;tion&shy;ary answer. The re&shy;volu&shy;tion&shy;ary answer is to give another so&shy;cial struc&shy;ture to so&shy;ciety. It does not mean the tear&shy;ing down of every&shy;thing.
 </div>
-{{DEFAULTSORT: Reflections on the revolution in france}}
+{{DEFAULTSORT: I am a megaphone}}
 [[Category:Anarchist history]]
 [[Category:Labour and industry]]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
   | previous   = [[../Overtaken by events: a Paris journal|Overtaken by events]]
   | next       = [[../Whitsun in the streets|Whitsun in the streets]]
-  | notes      = <div style="text-align:justify;">''DANIEL COHN-BENDIT{{s}} views are in&shy;cluded, not be&shy;cause we wish to add to the per&shy;son&shy;al&shy;ity cult built up by the press and TV around him, which he has con&shy;tin&shy;u&shy;ally re&shy;pudi&shy;ated, but be&shy;cause his was the most con&shy;sist&shy;ently anarch&shy;ist voice to be re&shy;ported. The'' 22''nd March Move&shy;ment from {{w|Nan&shy;terre|Paris_Nanterre_University}} was a com&shy;bin&shy;a&shy;tion of the Nan&shy;terre Anarch&shy;ist Group with sev&shy;eral other left stu&shy;dent{{s|r}} groups. The im&shy;port&shy;ant state&shy;ment by the [[Author:Nanterre Anarchist Group|Nan&shy;terre Anarch&shy;ist Group]] on at&shy;ti&shy;tudes to the {{w|Viet&shy;nam War|Vietnam_War}}, {{qq|[[Freedom 29/6/National Liberation or Class War?|Na&shy;tional Liber&shy;a&shy;tion or Class War?]]}} was printed in'' {{sc|freedom}} ''for'' [[Freedom 29/6|''Febru&shy;ary'' 24, 1968]], ''in a trans&shy;la&shy;tion by [[Author:Bob Blakeman|Bob Blake&shy;man]].'' (''Copies avail&shy;able from Free&shy;dom Press for'' 9''d. inc. postage.'')</div>
+  | notes      = <div style="text-align:justify;">''DANIEL COHN-BENDIT{{s}} views are in&shy;cluded, not be&shy;cause we wish to add to the per&shy;son&shy;al&shy;ity cult built up by the press and TV around him, which he has con&shy;tin&shy;u&shy;ally re&shy;pudi&shy;ated, but be&shy;cause his was the most con&shy;sist&shy;ently anarch&shy;ist voice to be re&shy;ported. The'' {{w|22''nd March Move&shy;ment''|Movement_of_22_March}} ''from {{w|Nan&shy;terre|Paris_Nanterre_University}} was a com&shy;bin&shy;a&shy;tion of the [[Author:Nanterre Anarchist Group|Nan&shy;terre Anarch&shy;ist Group]] with sev&shy;eral other left stu&shy;dent{{s|r}} groups. The im&shy;port&shy;ant state&shy;ment by the Nan&shy;terre Anarch&shy;ist Group on at&shy;ti&shy;tudes to the {{w|Viet&shy;nam War|Vietnam_War}}, {{qq|[[Freedom 29/6/National Liberation or Class War?|Na&shy;tional Liber&shy;a&shy;tion or Class War?]]}} was printed in'' {{sc|freedom}} ''for'' [[Freedom 29/6|''Febru&shy;ary'' 24, 1968]], ''in a trans&shy;la&shy;tion by [[Author:Bob Blakeman|Bob Blake&shy;man]].'' (''Copies avail&shy;able from Free&shy;dom Press for'' 9''d. inc. postage.'')</div>
 }}

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:35, 9 April 2018
Line 134:		Line 134:
	''Q'':&emsp;It was said in the {{w\|House of Lords\|House_of_Lords}} that you had the intention of using force to carry out plans in this country.		''Q'':&emsp;It was said in the {{w\|House of Lords\|House_of_Lords}} that you had the intention of using force to carry out plans in this country.

−	''A'':&emsp;A lot of people know more ~~that~~ I know. It{{s}} very interesting how all sorts of people know what I{{m}} doing and organising. I must really be better than {{w\|Batman}} or {{w\|Superman\|Superman}}, just travelling around and organising world revolution. I think it{{s}} because people are afraid because of the situation in England. And then they are afraid that a little thing can ex~~plosde~~ because people are not happy in this country. Perhaps this is the problem.	+	''A'':&emsp;A lot of people know more than I know. It{{s}} very interesting how all sorts of people know what I{{m}} doing and organising. I must really be better than {{w\|Batman}} or {{w\|Superman\|Superman}}, just travelling around and organising world revolution. I think it{{s}} because people are afraid because of the situation in England. And then they are afraid that a little thing can explode because people are not happy in this country. Perhaps this is the problem.
		+
		+
		+	'''London, June 13th ({{w\|BBC TV\|BBC_Television}})
		+
		+	''Q'':&emsp;I would like to ask the question: what is the complaint about existing society, why must it be transformed?
		+
		+	''A'':&emsp;We criticise all societies where people are passive, which means that they don{{t}} actively change what they do, for example where they work or where they live. This is what we want to change. Democracy in every society stops at the work-<wbr>place or the living-<wbr>place, and this is why ''we''don{{t}} call it democracy.
		+
		+	''Q'':&emsp;You wouldn{{t}} deny that in fact, after the first outburst of student-<wbr>worker co-<wbr>operation the majority of workers have now withdrawn from it.
		+
		+	''A'':&emsp;It{{s}} not true. I think that you should go and have a loot at the {{w\|Renault}} factory. I{{ll}} give you an example. I went to the {{w\|Flins works\|Flins_Renault_Factory}} with some comrades of the 22nd March Movement and we wanted to talk. The {{w\|CGT\|General_Confederation_of_Labour_(France)}} said, {{qq\|Oh well now, you don{{t}} talk}}, and the workers said, {{qq\|Let them talk. We want to hear what they have to say.}} I think that the most important thing, as we have seen in France, is that university students can be an example at one moment, but they cannot make the change alone. If the working class are not going to change the factories themselves, then there won{{t}} be a change in society. I think this is the problem you have in Germany: how to get the connection with all the working class. This is the problem.
		+
		+	''Q'':&emsp;Now I want to bring you to the question of method and goals. How far would it be fair to say that students in the activist movement really, in a sense, seek confrontation? That they seek thereby to reveal the realities of power in the hands of the state by seeking confrontation and hoping thereby to radicalise the student movement by seeing the reaction? Is that fair? I read my {{w\|Marcuse\|Herbert_Marcuse}} too. Some of the leaders claim that there is an advantage in revealing. … (Cries of {{qq\|Which leaders?}}) Oh, I can quote you many …
		+
		+	''A'':&emsp;Which leaders? I want to know this because I have read in English papers two things. First that we in France want to clash with the police, and secondly that a mob is fighting the police. We have now in France three dead, and I think that two are workers and one is a young {{w\|lycée\|Secondary_education_in_France}} student. Now I think that to call them a bob is absolutely inhuman. I don{{t}} know which side is the mob, if the mob are the people who used the gases used in Vietnam, or if the mob are the people who want to demonstrate to show how many they are. If you don{{t}} let us demonstrate, then we are a mob, just because we are defending ourselves. Never at any time have we said that we want a clash …
		+
		+
		+	'''{{w\|London School of Economics}}, June 13th (press reports)'''
		+
		+	{{tab}}{{qq\|At the LSE he analysed succinctly the lessons of the French revolt: how their actions had outrun their theory and they had been caught up in a vicious circle, constantly tempted out into the streets without time to think what to do; how they should have set about actually running their university with their own lecturers; how the factories controlled by workers should have gone on making things (as they are now doing in a factory in {{w\|Brest\|Brest,_France}}, making transistors and walkie-<wbr>talkies for other workers). …}}—{{w\|''Observer''\|The_Observer}}, 16.6.68.
		+
		+	{{tab}}{{qq\|French experience, he added, showed that a general strike in 1968 needed to be much more skilfully organised. It was a mistake to include petrol supplies because this had enabled de Gaulle to say: {{q\|After I spoke, you had petrol.}} He strongly implied that the workers should have used their occupation of factories to continue production.\|l}
		+
		+	{{tab}}He bitterly criticised the bureaucratic structure of the {{w\|French Communist Party\|French_Communist_Party}} which had sold out the revolutionary order{{dash\|the control of factories}}in returne for elections. As for the French students, they could regain the initiative by starting their autumn term sooner than the authorities intended.}}{{dash}}{{w\|''Guardian''\|The_Guardian}}, 14.6.68.
		+
		+
		+	'''London, June 14th (interview with Alexander Mitchell, {{qq\|{{w\|Sunday Times\|The_Sunday_Times}}}}, 16.6.68)
		+
		+	{{sc\|Daniel cohn-bendit said}}: Power corrupts. I think I{{m}} corrupted. It{{s}} time I left my position and disappeared back down into the movement. He went on: If you lead people they place faith in you. This corrupts. If you say or do something good then people will lean on you and say, {{qq\|He{{s}} okay{{dash}}he{{ll}} do.}} This is corruption. In any case we don{{t}} believe in lasting management. I will cease to be an identifiable leader in less than two months. They don{{t}} need me.
		+
		+	{{p\|220}}{{tab}}Now we aren{{t}} prophets, you know. And far from being idealists, we say we are the realists. We say nobody knows where we are going. {{w\|Johnson\|Lyndon_B._Johnson}} doesn{{t}} know where he is going. {{w\|Wilson\|Harold_Wilson}} doesn{{t}} know either. Wilson has changed his economic policy three times in 12 months. The disillusionment, of course, is with the Communist and the capitalist systems. What we propose is very difficult for people to understand. People don{{t}} have a predisposition to order, they are educated to it. They believe that someone somewhere makes decisions on their behalf, someone leads them, and they also firmly believe that there has to be a central structure of authority. Our problem is to prove they are wrong. There does not have to be an order as we know it now. This has already been shown in the takeover of the universities. …
		+
		+	{{tab}}The problem everywhere is how to get an industrial society to a technological society. This gap is difficult. There are two possibilities: the technocratic answer or the revolutionary answer. The revolutionary answer is to give another social structure to society. It does not mean the tearing down of everything.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:54, 9 April 2018
Line 88:		Line 88:

	''A'':&emsp;No, not the dictatorship of the proletariat. We are against ''all'' authority.		''A'':&emsp;No, not the dictatorship of the proletariat. We are against ''all'' authority.
		+
		+
		+	'''{{w\|London}}, June 12th'''
		+
		+	''Q'':&emsp;What exactly do you stand for? Are you a communist?
		+
		+	''A'':&emsp;I am supporting those who form {{w\|worker{{s\|r}} councils\|Workers'_council}}, for self-<wbr>determination for workers and for students. If this is communist you can call me a communist. But I do not agree with {{w\|Russian\|Soviet_Union}} politics. Politics today is not so simple. I am somebody who fights for the ''self''-<wbr>government of the workers. But when I say that I disagree with the policy of the government in Russia, remember that I disagree also with the policy of the governments in {{w\|Britain\|United_Kingdom}}, {{w\|France}}, {{w\|Germany\|West_Germany}}, the {{w\|USA\|United_States}}, etc.
		+
		+	''Q'':&emsp;Danny, you are regarded as the leader of the student movement in France …
		+
		+	''A'':&emsp;Excuse me, I will never lead anything. I will never tell people what to do. What ''they'' want to do they will do, and what ''they'' don{{t}} want to do they won{{t}}.
		+
		+	''Q'':&emsp;It has been reported that you said you want to seek {{w\|political asylum\|Right_of_asylum}} in this country.
		+
		+	''A'':&emsp;It{{s}} true I said this. It is a matter of political finesse. I said before that in France there is a pre-<wbr>fascist situation. Now there was another man who came to this country and asked for asylum when France had a pre-<wbr>revolutionary sitation. This was in 1940 and his name was de Gaulle. He wanted asylum …
		+
		+	''Q'':&emsp;De Gaulle was a Frenchman. Now Danny, you are not a Frenchman …
		+
		+	''A'':&emsp;I do not want to compare myself with de Gaulle, you understand. With the young people it does not matter if you are a Frenchman or a German. We don{{t}} bother about borders. I was born in France and I livd there, and I consider myself in this sense a Frenchman. This is how young people think. It is important to me that sixty to seventy thousand people all shouted {{qq\|We are all German Jews}}.
		+
		+	''Q'':&emsp;But Danny, I may be thick, but I still don{{t}} understand what sort of government you want.
		+
		+	''A'':&emsp;We want a worker{{s\|r}}, peasant{{s\|r}}, and student{{s\|r}} self-<wbr>government: the people in the factories to control the place where they work and the students to control the place where ''they'' work.
		+
		+	{\| style="text-align:justify; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-collapse:collapse; float:right; margin-left: 10px; width: 50%;" cellpadding="4"
		+	\|-
		+	\| <font size="2">'''View from the {{w\|West\|Western_Bloc}}'''
		+
		+	{{tab}}''In the deadly game of'' rouge et noir ''that is being played on French streets and in French factories there is more black than red, and but little consideration for the {{w\|Tricolor\|Flag_of_France}}.''
		+
		+	<div style="text-align: right;">{{dash}}{{sc\|{{w\|international herald tribune\|The_New_York_Times_International_Edition}}}}, 29.5.68.</div></font>
		+	\|}
		+	''Q'':&emsp;But in the {{w\|Sorbonne\|Sorbonne_University}} you have got what you were after. Why are {{p\|218}}the students still demonstrating?
		+
		+	''A'':&emsp;The students are supporting the working-<wbr>class. One and a half million workers are still on strike, and they are not striking for the money, the want ''control'' of what they do.
		+
		+	''Q'':&emsp;What is your reaction to the way you have been received in {{w\|England}}?
		+
		+	''A'':&emsp;Well, not astonished. It seems that all the governments want to show that we are right in saying that we live in a repressive society. I arrive in England and they don{{t}} want to let me in. Two years ago I came here and nobody said a word. Strange. I don{{t}} have to ask Mr. {{w\|Wilson\|Harold_Wilson}} and his {{w\|Home Office\|Home_Office}} if I want to see some people in England …
		+
		+	''Q'':&emsp;You wouldn{{t}} want to give the students here some advice on how to make a revolution?
		+
		+	''A'':&emsp;You don{{t}} export revolution. No, you don{{t}} export protestation against society. you can explain what has been done in France, but it{{s}} not adivce, you only explain it. You can exchange information about how to play soccer, but you don{{t}} export soccer games.
		+
		+	''Q'':&emsp;It was said in the {{w\|House of Lords\|House_of_Lords}} that you had the intention of using force to carry out plans in this country.
		+
		+	''A'':&emsp;A lot of people know more that I know. It{{s}} very interesting how all sorts of people know what I{{m}} doing and organising. I must really be better than {{w\|Batman}} or {{w\|Superman\|Superman}}, just travelling around and organising world revolution. I think it{{s}} because people are afraid because of the situation in England. And then they are afraid that a little thing can explosde because people are not happy in this country. Perhaps this is the problem.
		+
		+
	</div>		</div>