Anarchy 89/Reflections on the revolution in France - Revision history

imported>Ivanhoe at 05:03, 11 April 2018

2018-04-11T05:03:52Z

imported>Ivanhoe at 04:27, 11 April 2018

2018-04-11T04:27:42Z

Show changes

imported>Ivanhoe at 03:21, 11 April 2018

2018-04-11T03:21:32Z

imported>Ivanhoe at 14:51, 8 April 2018

2018-04-08T14:51:17Z

Show changes

imported>Ivanhoe at 04:40, 31 March 2018

2018-03-31T04:40:40Z

imported>Ivanhoe at 04:39, 31 March 2018

2018-03-31T04:39:00Z

imported>Ivanhoe at 04:37, 31 March 2018

2018-03-31T04:37:11Z

Show changes

imported>Ivanhoe at 03:43, 31 March 2018

2018-03-31T03:43:01Z

imported>Ivanhoe at 01:21, 31 March 2018

2018-03-31T01:21:35Z

imported>Ivanhoe at 01:39, 29 March 2018

2018-03-29T01:39:27Z

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 {{star}}
-'''Students.'''&emsp;The im&shy;port&shy;ant thing is to de&shy;fine their so&shy;cial posi&shy;tion{{dash}}their class posi&shy;tion, in fact. So&shy;cial&shy;ists of all kinds have stressed the im&shy;port&shy;ance of the de&shy;sert&shy;ers from the middle class, espe&shy;cially the young. Stu&shy;dents are pre&shy;cisely young middle-<wbr>class in&shy;tel&shy;lec&shy;tu&shy;als (what&shy;ever their origin and wat&shy;ever their in&shy;tel&shy;li&shy;gence), and they are at a par&shy;tic&shy;u&shy;lar stage in their lives when they are tem&shy;por&shy;ar&shy;ily taken out of con&shy;tact with the eco&shy;nomic real&shy;ities of their posi&shy;tion, and at the same time brought into con&shy;tact with the the&shy;or&shy;et&shy;ical im&shy;plica&shy;tions of it. Which group is more likely to de&shy;sert the middle class, and which group is more able to do so{{dash}}though only tem&shy;por&shy;ar&shy;ily in most cases? Not that {{qq|the stu&shy;dents}} as a class will rebel{{dash}}most stu&shy;dents are {{qq|over&shy;whelm&shy;ingly and ir&shy;re&shy;deem&shy;ably bour&shy;geois}}, as [[Author:Elizabeth Smith|Liz Smith]] put it in [[Anarchy 82/Thoughts on the student question|{{sc|anarchy}} 82]], and their class func&shy;tion is to become the brain work&shy;ers of the au&shy;thor&shy;it&shy;arian, ma&shy;na&shy;gerial so&shy;ciety (whether of&shy;fi&shy;cially cap&shy;it&shy;al&shy;ist or com&shy;mun&shy;ist) which sup&shy;ports them for a few years and which they sup&shy;port for the rest of their lives. But the stu&shy;dents who do rebel are among the most sig&shy;ni&shy;fic&shy;ant stu&shy;dents and also among the most sig&shy;ni&shy;fic&shy;ant rebels, so they are doubly im&shy;port&shy;ant. Inter&shy;est&shy;ing how the French stu&shy;dents before the ex&shy;plo&shy;sion com&shy;bined the two usual pre&shy;oc&shy;cu&shy;pa&shy;tions of stu&shy;dent rebels{{dash|narrow uni&shy;vers&shy;ity issues (re&shy;stric&shy;tions on learn&shy;ing, on sex, on food, and so on) and wider polit&shy;ical issues ({{w|Vietnam|Vietnam_War}}, race, cap&shy;it&shy;al&shy;ism, and so on)}}but were able to get beyond the usual im&shy;passe only when they made a syn&shy;thesis of them into what may be in&shy;dif&shy;fer&shy;ently called narrow polit&shy;ical or wider uni&shy;vers&shy;ity issues (student{{s|r}} con&shy;trol of the uni&shy;vers&shy;ity, worker{{s|r}} con&shy;trol of the factory, people{{s|r}} con&shy;trol of the streets). It is this syn&shy;thesis, {{p|198}}which stu&shy;dents are uniquely placed to make, which begins a re&shy;volu&shy;tion.<!-- period omitted in original --> And it should get so&shy;cial&shy;ists of all kinds away from think&shy;ing that the in&shy;dus&shy;trial strug&shy;gle is the only one worth bother&shy;ing about.
+'''Students.'''&emsp;The im&shy;port&shy;ant thing is to de&shy;fine their so&shy;cial posi&shy;tion{{dash}}their class posi&shy;tion, in fact. So&shy;cial&shy;ists of all kinds have stressed the im&shy;port&shy;ance of the de&shy;sert&shy;ers from the middle class, espe&shy;cially the in&shy;tel&shy;lec&shy;tu&shy;als, and espe&shy;cially the young. Stu&shy;dents are pre&shy;cisely young middle-<wbr>class in&shy;tel&shy;lec&shy;tu&shy;als (what&shy;ever their origin and what&shy;ever their in&shy;tel&shy;li&shy;gence), and they are at a par&shy;tic&shy;u&shy;lar stage in their lives when they are tem&shy;por&shy;ar&shy;ily taken out of con&shy;tact with the eco&shy;nomic real&shy;ities of their posi&shy;tion, and at the same time brought into con&shy;tact with the the&shy;or&shy;et&shy;ical im&shy;plica&shy;tions of it. Which group is more likely to de&shy;sert the middle class, and which group is more able to do so{{dash}}though only tem&shy;por&shy;ar&shy;ily in most cases? Not that {{qq|the stu&shy;dents}} as a class will rebel{{dash}}most stu&shy;dents are {{qq|over&shy;whelm&shy;ingly and ir&shy;re&shy;deem&shy;ably bour&shy;geois}}, as [[Author:Elizabeth Smith|Liz Smith]] put it in [[Anarchy 82/Thoughts on the student question|{{sc|anarchy}} 82]], and their class func&shy;tion is to become the brain work&shy;ers of the au&shy;thor&shy;it&shy;arian, ma&shy;na&shy;gerial so&shy;ciety (whether of&shy;fi&shy;cially cap&shy;it&shy;al&shy;ist or com&shy;mun&shy;ist) which sup&shy;ports them for a few years and which they sup&shy;port for the rest of their lives. But the stu&shy;dents who do rebel are among the most sig&shy;ni&shy;fic&shy;ant stu&shy;dents and also among the most sig&shy;ni&shy;fic&shy;ant rebels, so they are doubly im&shy;port&shy;ant. Inter&shy;est&shy;ing how the French stu&shy;dents before the ex&shy;plo&shy;sion com&shy;bined the two usual pre&shy;oc&shy;cu&shy;pa&shy;tions of stu&shy;dent rebels{{dash|narrow uni&shy;vers&shy;ity issues (re&shy;stric&shy;tions on learn&shy;ing, on sex, on food, and so on) and wider polit&shy;ical issues ({{w|Vietnam|Vietnam_War}}, race, cap&shy;it&shy;al&shy;ism, and so on)}}but were able to get beyond the usual im&shy;passe only when they made a syn&shy;thesis of them into what may be in&shy;dif&shy;fer&shy;ently called narrow polit&shy;ical or wider uni&shy;vers&shy;ity issues (student{{s|r}} con&shy;trol of the uni&shy;vers&shy;ity, worker{{s|r}} con&shy;trol of the factory, people{{s}} con&shy;trol of the streets). It is this syn&shy;thesis, {{p|198}}which stu&shy;dents are uniquely placed to make, which begins a re&shy;volu&shy;tion.<!-- period omitted in original --> And it should get so&shy;cial&shy;ists of all kinds away from think&shy;ing that the in&shy;dus&shy;trial strug&shy;gle is the only one worth bother&shy;ing about.
 {{star}}
-'''Workers.'''&emsp;The im&shy;port&shy;ant thing is to realise that the work&shy;ing class (in&shy;dus&shy;trial and agri&shy;cul&shy;tural alike) has not sud&shy;denly become re&shy;volu&shy;tion&shy;ary again. No class is re&shy;volu&shy;tion&shy;ary{{dash|this is one of the major fal&shy;la&shy;cies of Marx&shy;ism}}but the im&shy;port&shy;ance of the work&shy;ing class is its ob&shy;ject&shy;ive eco&shy;nomic and so&shy;cial posi&shy;tion. Power is in the work&shy;er{{s|r}} hands{{dash|or rather, power is the worker{{s|r}} hands}}but it is hardly ever used in a re&shy;volu&shy;tion&shy;ary way. If any ideo&shy;logy is pecu&shy;liar to the work&shy;ing class, it is that which used to be called {{qq|{{w|eco&shy;nom&shy;ism|Economism}}}}{{dash}}the pre&shy;oc&shy;cu&shy;pa&shy;tion with short-<wbr>term eco&shy;nomic gains (less work, more pay, bet&shy;ter con&shy;di&shy;tions, bigger bene&shy;fits and pen&shy;sions, greater dig&shy;nity) which makes sense in the work&shy;er{{s|r}} posi&shy;tion. The three sig&shy;nif&shy;ic&shy;ant things about the French events are that the work&shy;ers are not apath&shy;etic, con&shy;tented, stupid, or any of the things which the right-<wbr>wing aca&shy;dem&shy;ics and journ&shy;al&shy;ists think, but are still able and will&shy;ing to strike for their rights; that the work&shy;ers are im&shy;mensely power&shy;ful on the single con&shy;di&shy;tion that they act to&shy;gether, in their own inter&shy;ests and on their own ac&shy;count; and that the work&shy;ers may use re&shy;volu&shy;tion&shy;ary means but do not have re&shy;volu&shy;tion&shy;ary ends, ex&shy;cept when their es&shy;sen&shy;tially re&shy;form&shy;ist de&shy;mands are re&shy;sisted. In France the work&shy;ers took the re&shy;volu&shy;tion&shy;ary step of com&shy;bin&shy;ing a gen&shy;eral strike with the oc&shy;cu&shy;pa&shy;tion of the factor&shy;ies, they were so power&shy;ful that so&shy;ciety almost fell into their hands over&shy;night, but they let it go when their short-<wbr>term gains were won. In the sense that a modern, ad&shy;vanced, in&shy;dus&shy;trial&shy;ised so&shy;ciety can ap&shy;pease the work&shy;er{{s|r}} de&shy;mands without col&shy;lapsing, suc&shy;cess&shy;ful re&shy;volu&shy;tion does seem to be im&shy;pos&shy;sible. But it is worth no&shy;ticing how fright&shy;ened every&shy;one is of the pos&shy;sibil&shy;ity that the work&shy;ers won{{t}} be satis&shy;fied. Thou&shy;sands of column inches about the stu&shy;dent{{s|r}} con&shy;trol of the uni&shy;vers&shy;ities, but only a few about work&shy;er{{s|r}} con&shy;trol of the factor&shy;ies; what actu&shy;ally hap&shy;pened, howwere things run, how much pro&shy;duc&shy;tion was car&shy;ried on, how much dis&shy;tribu&shy;tion of raw ma&shy;teri&shy;als and fin&shy;ished goods was there, ''did it work''? And what about the mil&shy;lions of agri&shy;cul&shy;tural work&shy;ers? They after all have the ultim&shy;ate power of life or death in their hands.
+'''Workers.'''&emsp;The im&shy;port&shy;ant thing is to realise that the work&shy;ing class (in&shy;dus&shy;trial and agri&shy;cul&shy;tural alike) has not sud&shy;denly become re&shy;volu&shy;tion&shy;ary again. No class is re&shy;volu&shy;tion&shy;ary{{dash|this is one of the major fal&shy;la&shy;cies of Marx&shy;ism}}but the im&shy;port&shy;ance of the work&shy;ing class is its ob&shy;ject&shy;ive eco&shy;nomic and so&shy;cial posi&shy;tion. Power is in the work&shy;er{{s|r}} hands{{dash|or rather, power is the worker{{s|r}} hands}}but it is hardly ever used in a re&shy;volu&shy;tion&shy;ary way. If any ideo&shy;logy is pecu&shy;liar to the work&shy;ing class, it is that which used to be called {{qq|{{w|eco&shy;nom&shy;ism|Economism}}}}{{dash}}the pre&shy;oc&shy;cu&shy;pa&shy;tion with short-<wbr>term eco&shy;nomic gains (less work, more pay, bet&shy;ter con&shy;di&shy;tions, higher bene&shy;fits and pen&shy;sions, greater dig&shy;nity) which makes sense in the work&shy;er{{s|r}} posi&shy;tion. The three sig&shy;nif&shy;ic&shy;ant things about the French events are that the work&shy;ers are not apath&shy;etic, con&shy;tented, stupid, or any of the things which the right-<wbr>wing aca&shy;dem&shy;ics and journ&shy;al&shy;ists think, but are still able and will&shy;ing to strike for their rights; that the work&shy;ers are im&shy;mensely power&shy;ful on the single con&shy;di&shy;tion that they act to&shy;gether, in their own inter&shy;ests and on their own ac&shy;count; and that the work&shy;ers may use re&shy;volu&shy;tion&shy;ary means but do not have re&shy;volu&shy;tion&shy;ary ends, ex&shy;cept when their es&shy;sen&shy;tially re&shy;form&shy;ist de&shy;mands are re&shy;sisted. In France the work&shy;ers took the re&shy;volu&shy;tion&shy;ary step of com&shy;bin&shy;ing a gen&shy;eral strike with the oc&shy;cu&shy;pa&shy;tion of the factor&shy;ies, they were so power&shy;ful that so&shy;ciety almost fell into their hands over&shy;night, but they let it go when their short-<wbr>term gains were won. In the sense that a modern, ad&shy;vanced, in&shy;dus&shy;trial&shy;ised so&shy;ciety can ap&shy;pease the work&shy;er{{s|r}} de&shy;mands without col&shy;lapsing, suc&shy;cess&shy;ful re&shy;volu&shy;tion does seem to be im&shy;pos&shy;sible. But it is worth no&shy;ticing how fright&shy;ened every&shy;one is of the pos&shy;sibil&shy;ity that the work&shy;ers won{{t}} be satis&shy;fied. Thou&shy;sands of column inches about the stu&shy;dent{{s|r}} con&shy;trol of the uni&shy;vers&shy;ities, but only a few about work&shy;er{{s|r}} con&shy;trol of the factor&shy;ies; what actu&shy;ally hap&shy;pened, how were things run, how much pro&shy;duc&shy;tion was car&shy;ried on, how much dis&shy;tribu&shy;tion of raw ma&shy;teri&shy;als and fin&shy;ished goods was there, ''did it work''? And what about the mil&shy;lions of agri&shy;cul&shy;tural work&shy;ers? They after all have the ultim&shy;ate power of life or death in their hands.
 {{star}}'''Leaders and prophets.'''&emsp;The media look for lead&shy;ers. But those they find deny that they are {{qq|leaders}}; so do their {{qq|fol&shy;low&shy;ers}}. A neat idea that they are simply {{qq|mega&shy;phones}} for their com&shy;rades. Nice to see that they are not trusted to be any&shy;thing more. This at least is some&shy;thing we are fa&shy;mil&shy;iar with. And yet there is the in&shy;ter&shy;est&shy;ing fact that pro&shy;min&shy;ent people in such move&shy;ments do tend to be out&shy;siders{{dash}}[[Author:Daniel Cohn-Bendit|Cohn-<wbr>Bendit]] the {{w|German|West_Germany}} Jew, {{w|Dutschke|Rudi_Dutschke}} from {{w|East Germany|East_Germany}}, {{w|Tariq Ali|Tariq_Ali}} from {{w|Pakistan}}, {{w|Schoen&shy;man|Ralph_Schoenman}} from the {{w|United States|United_States}}; after all, the anarch&shy;ist move&shy;ment in this country has over and over again been brought back to life by foreign refugees. This is surely a gen&shy;eral soci&shy;olo&shy;gical and anthro&shy;polo&shy;gical pheno&shy;menon{{dash}}the out&shy;sider brings a new voice, a {{p|199}}breath of fresh air. Thank good&shy;ness for aliens, agit&shy;at&shy;ors, im&shy;migrants.
-{{tab}}The media also look for prophets. But who really listens to them? How many stu&shy;dents had heard of {{w|Marcuse|Herbert_Marcuse}} before the papers got on to him, and had ever seen a book by him? Most of the others don{{t}} even deal with our prob&shy;lems, but rather those of re&shy;volu&shy;tion in back&shy;ward, agri&shy;cul&shy;tural, des&shy;potic countries. How many people have actu&shy;ally read the thoughts of {{w|Chair&shy;man Mao|Mao_Zedong}}, wrenched from their con&shy;text and be&shy;lied by the cult of his per&shy;son&shy;al&shy;ity? How many are inter&shy;ested in what {{w|Guevara|Che_Guevara}} said rather than what he did (and how many are sure what that was?)? And how many have read, let alone under&shy;stood, {{w|Debray|Régis_Debray}}{{s}} art&shy;icles in ''{{w|New Left Review|New_Left_Review}}'' and his book in Penguins? Or {{w|Fanon|Frantz_Fanon}}{{s}}? One of the most sig&shy;nif&shy;ic&shy;ant things about the pres&shy;ent move&shy;ment seems to be its dis&shy;trust of the proph&shy;ets as of lead&shy;ers. No sacred tets, no in&shy;fal&shy;lible pontiffs, no ex&shy;com&shy;mun&shy;ica&shy;tions, no ex&shy;ecu&shy;tions. Per&shy;haps it{{s}} just as well that anarch&shy;ist writ&shy;ings are so dif&shy;fi&shy;cult to get hold of; people can come to anarch&shy;ism through their own ex&shy;peri&shy;ence, by trial and error.
+{{tab}}The media also look for prophets. But who really listens to them? How many stu&shy;dents had heard of {{w|Marcuse|Herbert_Marcuse}} before the papers got on to him, and had ever seen a book by him? Most of the others don{{t}} even deal with our prob&shy;lems, but rather those of re&shy;volu&shy;tion in back&shy;ward, agri&shy;cul&shy;tural, des&shy;potic countries. How many people have actu&shy;ally read the thoughts of {{w|Chair&shy;man Mao|Mao_Zedong}}, wrenched from their con&shy;text and be&shy;lied by the cult of his per&shy;son&shy;al&shy;ity? How many are inter&shy;ested in what {{w|Guevara|Che_Guevara}} said rather than what he did (and how many are sure what that was?)? And how many have read, let alone under&shy;stood, {{w|Debray|Régis_Debray}}{{s}} art&shy;icles in ''{{w|New Left Review|New_Left_Review}}'' and his book in Penguins? Or {{w|Fanon|Frantz_Fanon}}{{s}}? One of the most sig&shy;nif&shy;ic&shy;ant things about the pres&shy;ent move&shy;ment seems to be its dis&shy;trust of the proph&shy;ets as of lead&shy;ers. No sacred texts, no in&shy;fal&shy;lible pontiffs, no ex&shy;com&shy;mun&shy;ica&shy;tions, no ex&shy;ecu&shy;tions. Per&shy;haps it{{s}} just as well that anarch&shy;ist writ&shy;ings are so dif&shy;fi&shy;cult to get hold of; people can come to anarch&shy;ism through their own ex&shy;peri&shy;ence, by trial and error.
 {{star}}
-'''Violence and non-violence.'''&emsp;Viol&shy;ence is neces&shy;sary and {{w|non-<wbr>viol&shy;ence|Nonviolence}} is dead. Is this really the lesson of France, after {{w|India|Non-cooperation_movement}}, {{w|South Africa|Anti-Apartheid_Movement}}, the {{w|United States|Civil_rights_movement}}, and {{w|Britain|Fellowship_of_Reconciliation}}? It is clear that a phys&shy;ical con&shy;front&shy;a&shy;tion between the rebels and the auth&shy;or&shy;ities is es&shy;sen&shy;tial. But wasn{{t}} the ini&shy;tial con&shy;trast cru&shy;cial? The viol&shy;ent at&shy;tack by the {{w|CRS|Compagnies_Républicaines_de_Sécurité}} on the un&shy;armed, un&shy;pre&shy;pared stu&shy;dents won more pop&shy;ular sym&shy;pathy at the be&shy;gin&shy;ning than any&shy;thing else could have node. Was the rebel{{s|r}} later use of viol&shy;ence use&shy;ful? It seems un&shy;pro&shy;duct&shy;ive if not actu&shy;ally counter-<wbr>pro&shy;duct&shy;tive to {{w|throw cob&shy;bles|Criminal_rock_throwing#In_political_protests_and_rioting}} or even {{w|petrol bombs|Molotov_cocktail}} at heavily armed and well pro&shy;tected {{w|police&shy;men|Riot_police}}, to throw up barri&shy;cades which are thrown down the same night, to fight without being able to win. Isn{{t}} the only ex&shy;cuse for viol&shy;ence that it works? But the strong will always win unless they break, and the police (to say nothing of the army behind them) have shown no signs of even bend&shy;ing. Is the viol&shy;ence of the French stu&shy;dents (like that of their Brit&shy;ish and Amer&shy;ican com&shy;rades, of the {{w|South African|Bantu_peoples_in_South_Africa}} and {{w|American negroes|African_Americans}}) really new? Surely the use of viol&shy;ence is only a re&shy;turn to the posi&shy;tion before {{w|Gandhi|Mahatma_Gandhi}} and the {{w|Bomb|Thermonuclear_weapon}}, and we are in danger of for&shy;get&shy;ting the lesson we thought we had learnt, that viol&shy;ence breeds viol&shy;ence and the worst man wins. Do we then con&shy;demn viol&shy;ence? Of course not{{dash|there will be viol&shy;ence in every seri&shy;ous strug&shy;gle, and viol&shy;ent re&shy;sist&shy;ance is better than no re&shy;sist&shy;ance}}but we must ques&shy;tion the cur&shy;rent re&shy;vival of inter&shy;est in and ap&shy;proval of viol&shy;ent means which brings us closer to our enemies in more ways than one.
+'''Violence and non-violence.'''&emsp;Viol&shy;ence is neces&shy;sary and {{w|non-<wbr>viol&shy;ence|Nonviolence}} is dead. Is this really the lesson of France, after {{w|India|Non-cooperation_movement}}, {{w|South Africa|Anti-Apartheid_Movement}}, the {{w|United States|Civil_rights_movement}}, and {{w|Britain|Fellowship_of_Reconciliation}}? It is clear that a phys&shy;ical con&shy;front&shy;a&shy;tion between the rebels and the auth&shy;or&shy;ities is es&shy;sen&shy;tial. But wasn{{t}} the ini&shy;tial con&shy;trast cru&shy;cial? The viol&shy;ent at&shy;tack by the {{w|CRS|Compagnies_Républicaines_de_Sécurité}} on the un&shy;armed, un&shy;pre&shy;pared stu&shy;dents won more pop&shy;ular sym&shy;pathy at the be&shy;gin&shy;ning than any&shy;thing else could have done. Was the rebel{{s|r}} later use of viol&shy;ence use&shy;ful? It seems un&shy;pro&shy;duct&shy;ive if not actu&shy;ally counter-<wbr>pro&shy;duct&shy;ive to {{w|throw cob&shy;bles|Criminal_rock_throwing#In_political_protests_and_rioting}} or even {{w|petrol bombs|Molotov_cocktail}} at heavily armed and well pro&shy;tected {{w|police&shy;men|Riot_police}}, to throw up barri&shy;cades which are thrown down the same night, to fight without being able to win. Isn{{t}} the only ex&shy;cuse for viol&shy;ence that it works? But the strong will always win unless they break, and the police (to say nothing of the army behind them) have shown no signs of even bend&shy;ing. Is the viol&shy;ence of the French stu&shy;dents (like that of their Brit&shy;ish and Amer&shy;ican com&shy;rades, of the {{w|South African|Bantu_peoples_in_South_Africa}} and {{w|American negroes|African_Americans}}) really new? Surely the use of viol&shy;ence is only a re&shy;turn to the posi&shy;tion before {{w|Gandhi|Mahatma_Gandhi}} and the {{w|Bomb|Thermonuclear_weapon}}, and we are in danger of for&shy;get&shy;ting the lesson we thought we had learnt, that viol&shy;ence breeds viol&shy;ence and the worst man wins. Do we then con&shy;demn viol&shy;ence? Of course not{{dash|there will be viol&shy;ence in every seri&shy;ous strug&shy;gle, and viol&shy;ent re&shy;sist&shy;ance is better than no re&shy;sist&shy;ance}}but we must ques&shy;tion the cur&shy;rent re&shy;vival of inter&shy;est in and ap&shy;proval of viol&shy;ent means which brings us closer to our enemies in more ways than one.
 {{DEFAULTSORT: Reflections on the revolution in france}}

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
-'''{{w|France}}.'''&emsp;The re&shy;vival of the great tradi&shy;tion after nearly a cen&shy;tury{{dash|{{w|1789|Storming_of_the_Bastille}}, {{w|1830|July_Revolution}}, {{w|1848|French_Revolution_of_1848}}, {{w|1871|Paris_Commune}}}}from the {{w|storm&shy;ing of the Bastille|Storming_of_the_Bastille}} to the fall of the {{w|Com&shy;mune|Paris_Commune}}. A re&shy;minder that most of our polit&shy;ical ideas (and the words they are ex&shy;pressed in) come from France. (It makes it easier to under&shy;stand why old [[Author:Peter Kropotkin|Kropot&shy;kin]] wanted to fight for {{w|France|French_Third_Republic}} in {{w|1914|World_War_I}}.) But how the tradi&shy;tion has be&shy;come divided! The {{w|Tricolour|Flag_of_France}}, the {{w|Repub&shy;lic|French_First_Republic}}, the {{w|Mar&shy;seil&shy;laise|La_Marseillaise}}, the {{w|Re&shy;sist&shy;ance|French_Revolution}}{{dash}}all sym&shy;bols of the estab&shy;lish&shy;ment, of the ex&shy;treme right. But that is nothing new. {{qq|{{w|Liberty,<!-- comma omitted in original --> equal&shy;ity, frat&shy;ern&shy;ity|Liberté,_égalité,_fraternité}}, when what the Repub&shy;lic really means is {{w|in&shy;fantry|Infantry}}, {{w|cav&shy;alry|Cavalry}}, {{w|artil&shy;lery|Artillery}}}}{{dash}}said {{w|Marx|Karl_Marx}} 120 years ago. What is new is that people are sur&shy;prised when the French stu&shy;dents oc&shy;cupy the uni&shy;vers&shy;ities and the French work&shy;ers oc&shy;cupy the factor&shy;ies. The tradi&shy;tion must be part of the French people{{s}} polit&shy;ical edu&shy;ca&shy;tion. We still re&shy;mem&shy;ber our {{w|Hunger Marches|Hunger_marches}}, our {{w|Gen&shy;eral Strike|1926_United_Kingdom_general_strike}}, our {{w|Suf&shy;fragettes|Women's_suffrage_in_the_United_Kingdom}}, our Black Sunday, our {{w|chart&shy;ists|Chartism}}; surely the French may be ex&shy;pec&shy;ted to re&shy;mem&shy;ber the Re&shy;sist&shy;ance, the {{w|sit-in strikes of 1936|Matignon_Agreements_(1936)}}, the {{w|mut&shy;inies {{p|194}}of 1917|1917_French_Army_mutinies}}, the {{w|syn&shy;dic&shy;al&shy;ist move&shy;ment|General_Confederation_of_Labour_(France)#1895–1914:_Anarcho-syndicalism}} before the {{w|First World War|World_War_I}}, the Com&shy;mune, the {{w|July Days|July_Revolution}}, the {{w|Great Fear|Great_Fear}}. We are hardly in close touch with French af&shy;fairs, but recent issues of {{sc|anarchy}} men&shy;tioned {{qq|the sort of activ&shy;ism which is en&shy;demic at the bour&shy;geois {{w|Sor&shy;bonne|Sorbonne}}}} ([[Author:Peter Redan Black|Peter Redan Black]] in [[Anarchy 84|{{sc|anarchy}} 84]]) and de&shy;scribed the sit-<wbr>in strike in {{w|Besan&shy;con|Besançon}} ({{w|Proud&shy;hon|Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon}}{{s}} home town!) at the begin&shy;ning of last year ([[Author:Chris Marker|Chris Marker]] in [[Anarchy 76|{{sc|anarchy}} 76]]). After all, the {{w|Nan&shy;terre|Nanterre}} stu&shy;dents have been strug&shy;gling with the au&shy;thor&shy;ities for a year; where have all the ex&shy;perts been?
+'''{{w|France}}.'''&emsp;The re&shy;vival of the great tradi&shy;tion after nearly a cen&shy;tury{{dash|{{w|1789|Storming_of_the_Bastille}}, {{w|1830|July_Revolution}}, {{w|1848|French_Revolution_of_1848}}, {{w|1871|Paris_Commune}}}}from the {{w|storm&shy;ing of the Bastille|Storming_of_the_Bastille}} to the fall of the {{w|Com&shy;mune|Paris_Commune}}. A re&shy;minder that most of our polit&shy;ical ideas (and the words they are ex&shy;pressed in) come from France. (It makes it easier to under&shy;stand why old [[Author:Peter Kropotkin|Kropot&shy;kin]] wanted to fight for {{w|France|French_Third_Republic}} in {{w|1914|World_War_I}}.) But how the tradi&shy;tion has be&shy;come divided! The {{w|Tricolour|Flag_of_France}}, the {{w|Repub&shy;lic|French_First_Republic}}, the {{w|Mar&shy;seil&shy;laise|La_Marseillaise}}, the {{w|Re&shy;sist&shy;ance|French_Revolution}}{{dash}}all sym&shy;bols of the estab&shy;lish&shy;ment, of the ex&shy;treme right. But that is nothing new. {{qq|{{w|Liberty,<!-- comma omitted in original --> equal&shy;ity, frat&shy;ern&shy;ity|Liberté,_égalité,_fraternité}}, when what the Repub&shy;lic really means is {{w|in&shy;fantry|Infantry}}, {{w|cav&shy;alry|Cavalry}}, {{w|artil&shy;lery|Artillery}}}}{{dash}}said {{w|Marx|Karl_Marx}} 120 years ago. What is new is that people are sur&shy;prised when the French stu&shy;dents oc&shy;cupy the uni&shy;vers&shy;ities and the French work&shy;ers oc&shy;cupy the factor&shy;ies. The tradi&shy;tion must be part of the French people{{s}} polit&shy;ical edu&shy;ca&shy;tion. We still re&shy;mem&shy;ber our {{w|Hunger Marches|Hunger_marches}}, our {{w|Gen&shy;eral Strike|1926_United_Kingdom_general_strike}}, our {{w|Suf&shy;fragettes|Women's_suffrage_in_the_United_Kingdom}}, our Black Sunday, our {{w|Chart&shy;ists|Chartism}}; surely the French may be ex&shy;pec&shy;ted to re&shy;mem&shy;ber the Re&shy;sist&shy;ance, the {{w|sit-in strikes of 1936|Matignon_Agreements_(1936)}}, the {{w|mut&shy;inies {{p|194}}of 1917|1917_French_Army_mutinies}}, the {{w|syn&shy;dic&shy;al&shy;ist move&shy;ment|General_Confederation_of_Labour_(France)#1895–1914:_Anarcho-syndicalism}} before the {{w|First World War|World_War_I}}, the Com&shy;mune, the {{w|July Days|July_Revolution}}, the {{w|Great Fear|Great_Fear}}. We are hardly in close touch with French af&shy;fairs, but recent issues of {{sc|anarchy}} men&shy;tioned {{qq|the sort of activ&shy;ism which is en&shy;demic at the bour&shy;geois {{w|Sor&shy;bonne|Sorbonne}}}} ([[Author:Peter Redan Black|Peter Redan Black]] in [[Anarchy 84|{{sc|anarchy}} 84]]) and de&shy;scribed the sit-<wbr>in strike in {{w|Besan&shy;con|Besançon}} ({{w|Proud&shy;hon|Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon}}{{s}} home town!) at the begin&shy;ning of last year ([[Author:Chris Marker|Chris Marker]] in [[Anarchy 76|{{sc|anarchy}} 76]]). After all, the {{w|Nan&shy;terre|Nanterre}} stu&shy;dents have been strug&shy;gling with the au&shy;thor&shy;ities for a year; where have all the ex&shy;perts been?
 {{star}}
@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 '''Revolution.'''&emsp;A timely re&shy;minder that when you come down to it you have to go out into the streets and con&shy;front the forces of the state. That in the end ony a trem&shy;end&shy;ous and ter&shy;ri&shy;fy&shy;ing change in the way so&shy;ciety is organ&shy;ised can bring about what we want. That this will not hap&shy;pen by itself, but that some&shy;one has to de&shy;cide to make it hap&shy;pen. That we have to be pre&shy;mature (only pre&shy;mature action leads to mature action), that we have to make mis&shy;takes (people who don{{t}} make mis&shy;takes don{{t}} make any&shy;thing), that we have to take risks (the blood of mar&shy;tyrs is still, alas, the seed of the faith), that we have to begin by look&shy;ing rid&shy;ic&shy;u&shy;lous and end by look&shy;ing futile. A re&shy;mind&shy;er of {{w|William Morris|William_Morris}}, in ''{{l|A Dream of John Ball|https://archive.org/details/dreamofjohnballa00morr}},'' pon&shy;der&shy;ing {{qq|how men fight and lose the battle, and the thing that they fought for comes about in spite of their de&shy;feat, and when it comes turns out not to be what they meant, and other men have to fight for what they meant under an&shy;other name}}. A re&shy;minder of the dan&shy;ger of re&shy;volu&shy;tion, in being what {{w|Engels|Friedrich_Engels}} called {{qq|the most au&shy;thor&shy;it&shy;arian thing ima&shy;gin&shy;able}}, in pro&shy;vok&shy;ing counter-<wbr>re&shy;volu&shy;tion, in tend&shy;ing towards nihil&shy;ism, in ex&shy;pos&shy;ing one{{s}} weak&shy;nesses and giv&shy;ing away one{{s}} strengths, in rais&shy;ing false hopes and bring&shy;ing des&shy;pair.
-{{tab}}Tragic to be so near and yet so far. The young people tak&shy;ing the streets, the in&shy;tel&shy;lect&shy;u&shy;als taking the uni&shy;vers&shy;it&shy;ies, the work&shy;ers tak&shy;ing the fact&shy;or&shy;ies, the farm&shy;ers on their tract&shy;ors{{dash}}if only the work&shy;ers had run the fact&shy;or&shy;ies that made cars to re&shy;place those de&shy;stroyed in the fight&shy;ing, if only the farm&shy;ers had sent food into the towns for no&shy;thing and re&shy;ceived tract&shy;ors for no&shy;thing in re&shy;turn, if only the shops had opened and the pub&shy;lic trans&shy;port had run with&shy;out pay&shy;ment, what could the police or even the army have done? Who dare say it couldn{{t}} happen, after {{w|Russia}} in {{w|1917|October_Revolution}} and {{w|Spain}} in {{w|1936|Spanish_Revolution_of_1936}}?
+{{tab}}Tragic to be so near and yet so far. The young people tak&shy;ing the streets, the in&shy;tel&shy;lect&shy;u&shy;als taking the uni&shy;vers&shy;it&shy;ies, the work&shy;ers tak&shy;ing the fact&shy;or&shy;ies, the farm&shy;ers on their tract&shy;ors{{dash}}if only the work&shy;ers had run the fact&shy;or&shy;ies and made cars to re&shy;place those de&shy;stroyed in the fight&shy;ing, if only the farm&shy;ers had sent food into the towns for no&shy;thing and re&shy;ceived tract&shy;ors for no&shy;thing in re&shy;turn, if only the shops had opened and the pub&shy;lic trans&shy;port had run with&shy;out any pay&shy;ment, what could the police or even the army have done? Who dare say it couldn{{t}} happen, after {{w|Russia}} in {{w|1917|October_Revolution}} and {{w|Spain}} in {{w|1936|Spanish_Revolution_of_1936}}?
 {{star}}

@@ Line 145: / Line 145: @@
 [[Category:Protest]]
 [[Category:Strikes]]
 [[Category:Violence and nonviolence]]
 [[Category:Articles]]
 </div>

@@ Line 137: / Line 137: @@
 {{star}}
-'''Violence and non-violence.'''&emsp;Viol&ehy;ence is neces&shy;sary and {{w|non-<wbr>viol&shy;ence|Nonviolence}} is dead. Is this really the lesson of France, after {{w|India|Non-cooperation_movement}}, {{w|South Africa|Anti-Apartheid_Movement}}, the {{w|United States|Civil_rights_movement}}, and {{w|Britain|Fellowship_of_Reconciliation}}? It is clear that a phys&shy;ical con&shy;front&shy;a&shy;tion between the rebels and the auth&shy;or&shy;ities is es&shy;sen&shy;tial. But wasn{{t}} the ini&shy;tial con&shy;trast cru&shy;cial? The viol&shy;ent at&shy;tack by the {{w|CRS|Compagnies_Républicaines_de_Sécurité}} on the un&shy;armed, un&shy;pre&shy;pared stu&shy;dents won more pop&shy;ular sym&shy;pathy at the be&shy;gin&shy;ning than any&shy;thing else could have node. Was the rebel{{s|r}} later use of viol&shy;ence use&shy;ful? It seems un&shy;pro&shy;duct&shy;ive if not actu&shy;ally counter-<wbr>pro&shy;duct&shy;tive to {{w|throw cob&shy;bles|Criminal_rock_throwing#In_political_protests_and_rioting}} or even {{w|petrol bombs|Molotov_cocktail}} at heavily armed and well pro&shy;tected {{w|police&shy;men|Riot_police}}, to throw up barri&shy;cades which are thrown down the same night, to fight without being able to win. Isn{{t}} the only ex&shy;cuse for viol&shy;ence that it works? But the strong will always win unless they break, and the police (to say nothing of the army behind them) have shown no signs of even bend&shy;ing. Is the viol&shy;ence of the French stu&shy;dents (like that of their Brit&shy;ish and Amer&shy;ican com&shy;rades, of the {{w|South African|Bantu_peoples_in_South_Africa}} and {{w|American negroes|African_Americans}}) really new? Surely the use of viol&shy;ence is only a re&shy;turn to the posi&shy;tion before {{w|Gandhi|Mahatma_Gandhi}} and the {{w|Bomb|Thermonuclear_weapon}}, and we are in danger of for&shy;get&shy;ting the lesson we thought we had learnt, that viol&shy;ence breeds viol&shy;ence and the worst man wins. Do we then con&shy;demn viol&shy;ence? Of course not{{dash|there will be viol&shy;ence in every seri&shy;ous strug&shy;gle, and viol&shy;ent re&shy;sist&shy;ance is better than no re&shy;sist&shy;ance}}but we must ques&shy;tion the cur&shy;rent re&shy;vival of inter&shy;est in and ap&shy;proval of viol&shy;ent means which brings us closer to our enemies in more ways than one.
+'''Violence and non-violence.'''&emsp;Viol&shy;ence is neces&shy;sary and {{w|non-<wbr>viol&shy;ence|Nonviolence}} is dead. Is this really the lesson of France, after {{w|India|Non-cooperation_movement}}, {{w|South Africa|Anti-Apartheid_Movement}}, the {{w|United States|Civil_rights_movement}}, and {{w|Britain|Fellowship_of_Reconciliation}}? It is clear that a phys&shy;ical con&shy;front&shy;a&shy;tion between the rebels and the auth&shy;or&shy;ities is es&shy;sen&shy;tial. But wasn{{t}} the ini&shy;tial con&shy;trast cru&shy;cial? The viol&shy;ent at&shy;tack by the {{w|CRS|Compagnies_Républicaines_de_Sécurité}} on the un&shy;armed, un&shy;pre&shy;pared stu&shy;dents won more pop&shy;ular sym&shy;pathy at the be&shy;gin&shy;ning than any&shy;thing else could have node. Was the rebel{{s|r}} later use of viol&shy;ence use&shy;ful? It seems un&shy;pro&shy;duct&shy;ive if not actu&shy;ally counter-<wbr>pro&shy;duct&shy;tive to {{w|throw cob&shy;bles|Criminal_rock_throwing#In_political_protests_and_rioting}} or even {{w|petrol bombs|Molotov_cocktail}} at heavily armed and well pro&shy;tected {{w|police&shy;men|Riot_police}}, to throw up barri&shy;cades which are thrown down the same night, to fight without being able to win. Isn{{t}} the only ex&shy;cuse for viol&shy;ence that it works? But the strong will always win unless they break, and the police (to say nothing of the army behind them) have shown no signs of even bend&shy;ing. Is the viol&shy;ence of the French stu&shy;dents (like that of their Brit&shy;ish and Amer&shy;ican com&shy;rades, of the {{w|South African|Bantu_peoples_in_South_Africa}} and {{w|American negroes|African_Americans}}) really new? Surely the use of viol&shy;ence is only a re&shy;turn to the posi&shy;tion before {{w|Gandhi|Mahatma_Gandhi}} and the {{w|Bomb|Thermonuclear_weapon}}, and we are in danger of for&shy;get&shy;ting the lesson we thought we had learnt, that viol&shy;ence breeds viol&shy;ence and the worst man wins. Do we then con&shy;demn viol&shy;ence? Of course not{{dash|there will be viol&shy;ence in every seri&shy;ous strug&shy;gle, and viol&shy;ent re&shy;sist&shy;ance is better than no re&shy;sist&shy;ance}}but we must ques&shy;tion the cur&shy;rent re&shy;vival of inter&shy;est in and ap&shy;proval of viol&shy;ent means which brings us closer to our enemies in more ways than one.
 </div>
@@ Line 145: / Line 145: @@
 [[Category:Protest]]
 [[Category:Strikes]]
 [[Category:Articles]]
 </div>

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:43, 31 March 2018
Line 57:		Line 57:

	{{star}}		{{star}}
		+
		+	'''Students.'''&emsp;The important thing is to define their social position{{dash}}their class position, in fact. Socialists of all kinds have stressed the importance of the deserters from the middle class, especially the young. Students are precisely young middle-<wbr>class intellectuals (whatever their origin and watever their intelligence), and they are at a particular stage in their lives when they are temporarily taken out of contact with the economic realities of their position, and at the same time brought into contact with the theoretical implications of it. Which group is more likely to desert the middle class, and which group is more able to do so{{dash}}though only temporarily in most cases? Not that {{qq\|the students}} as a class will rebel{{dash}}most students are {{qq\|overwhelmingly and irredeemably bourgeois}}, as [[Author:Elizabeth Smith\|Liz Smith]] put it in [[Anarchy 82/Thoughts on the student question\|{{sc\|anarchy}} 82]], and their class function is to become the brain workers of the authoritarian, managerial society (whether officially capitalist or communist) which supports them for a few years and which they support for the rest of their lives. But the students who do rebel are among the most significant students and also among the most significant rebels, so they are doubly important. Interesting how the French students before the explosion combined the two usual preoccupations of student rebels{{dash\|narrow university issues (restrictions on learning, on sex, on food, and so on) and wider political issues ({{w\|Vietnam\|Vietnam_War}}, race, capitalism, and so on)}}but were able to get beyond the usual impasse only when they made a synthesis of them into what may be indifferently called narrow political or wider university issues (student{{s\|r}} control of the university, worker{{s\|r}} control of the factory, people{{s\|r}} control of the streets). It is this synthesis, {{p\|198}}which students are uniquely placed to make, which begins a revolution.<!-- period omitted in original --> And it should get socialists of all kinds away from thinking that the industrial struggle is the only one worth bothering about.
		+
		+	{{star}}
		+
		+	'''Workers.'''&emsp;The important thing is to realise that the working class (industrial and agricultural alike) has not suddenly become revolutionary again. No class is revolutionary{{dash\|this is one of the major fallacies of Marxism}}but the importance of the working class is its objective economic and social position. Power is in the worker{{s\|r}} hands{{dash\|or rather, power is the worker{{s\|r}} hands}}but it is hardly ever used in a revolutionary way. If any ideology is peculiar to the working class, it is that which used to be called {{qq\|{{w\|economism\|Economism}}}}{{dash}}the preoccupation with short-<wbr>term economic gains (less work, more pay, better conditions, bigger benefits and pensions, greater dignity) which makes sense in the worker{{s\|r}} position. The three significant things about the French events are that the workers are not apathetic, contented, stupid, or any of the things which the right-<wbr>wing academics and journalists think, but are still able and willing to strike for their rights; that the workers are immensely powerful on the single condition that they act together, in their own interests and on their own account; and that the workers may use revolutionary means but do not have revolutionary ends, except when their essentially reformist demands are resisted. In France the workers took the revolutionary step of combining a general strike with the occupation of the factories, they were so powerful that society almost fell into their hands overnight, but they let it go when their short-<wbr>term gains were won. In the sense that a modern, advanced, industrialised society can appease the worker{{s\|r}} demands without collapsing, successful revolution does seem to be impossible. But it is worth noticing how frightened everyone is of the possibility that the workers won{{t}} be satisfied. Thousands of column inches about the student{{s\|r}} control of the universities, but only a few about worker{{s\|r}} control of the factories; what actually happened, howwere things run, how much production was carried on, how much distribution of raw materials and finished goods was there, ''did it work''? And what about the millions of agricultural workers? They after all have the ultimate power of life or death in their hands.
		+
		+	{{star}}'''Leaders and prophets.'''&emsp;The media look for leaders. But those they find deny that they are {{qq\|leaders}}; so do their {{qq\|followers}}. A neat idea that they are simply {{qq\|megaphones}} for their comrades. Nice to see that they are not trusted to be anything more. This at least is something we are familiar with. And yet there is the interesting fact that prominent people in such movements do tend to be outsiders{{dash}}[[Author:Daniel Cohn-Bendit\|Cohn-<wbr>Bendit]] the {{w\|German\|West_Germany}} Jew, {{w\|Dutschke\|Rudi_Dutschke}} from {{w\|East Germany\|East_Germany}}, {{w\|Tariq Ali\|Tariq_Ali}} from {{w\|Pakistan}}, {{w\|Schoenman\|Ralph_Schoenman}} from the {{w\|United States\|United_States}}; after all, the anarchist movement in this country has over and over again been brought back to life by foreign refugees. This is surely a general sociological and anthropological phenomenon{{dash}}the outsider brings a new voice, a {{p\|199}}breath of fresh air. Thank goodness for aliens, agitators, immigrants.
		+
		+	{{tab}}The media also look for prophets.
	</div>		</div>

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 {{star}}
-'''Com&shy;mun&shy;ists.'''&emsp;Will the part played by the Com&shy;mun&shy;ists at last con&shy;vince people that Com&shy;mun&shy;ism is not a re&shy;volu&shy;tion&shy;ary but a counter-<wbr>revolu&shy;tion&shy;ary force? The {{w|French Com&shy;mun&shy;ist Party|French_Communist_Party}}, the {{w|Gen&shy;eral Con&shy;feder&shy;a&shy;tion of Labour|General_Confederation_of_Labour_(France)}} (CGT) which it con&shy;trols, and the paper ''{{w|L{{a}}Humanit&eacute;|L'Humanité}}'' which it pub&shy;lishes, have to&shy;gether been one of the main factors pre&shy;vent&shy;ing the suc&shy;cess of the re&shy;volu&shy;tion, after the gov&shy;ern&shy;ment, the army, and the police. Here is the cul&shy;mina&shy;tion of {{w|Bol&shy;shev&shy;ism|Bolsheviks}} after fifty years. (And the tradi&shy;tional Trotsky&shy;ists were better only be&shy;cause they were weaker.) But the Com&shy;mun&shy;ists have now sur&shy;vived so many ex&shy;posures{{dash}}{{w|Kron&shy;stadt|Kronstadt_rebellion}}, {{w|China|Maoism}}, {{w|Spain|Communist_Party_of_Spain}},
+'''Com&shy;mun&shy;ists.'''&emsp;Will the part played by the Com&shy;mun&shy;ists at last con&shy;vince people that Com&shy;mun&shy;ism is not a re&shy;volu&shy;tion&shy;ary but a counter-<wbr>revolu&shy;tion&shy;ary force? The {{w|French Com&shy;mun&shy;ist Party|French_Communist_Party}}, the {{w|Gen&shy;eral Con&shy;feder&shy;a&shy;tion of Labour|General_Confederation_of_Labour_(France)}} (CGT) which it con&shy;trols, and the paper ''{{w|L{{a}}Humanit&eacute;|L'Humanité}}'' which it pub&shy;lishes, have to&shy;gether been one of the main factors pre&shy;vent&shy;ing the suc&shy;cess of the re&shy;volu&shy;tion, after the gov&shy;ern&shy;ment, the army, and the police. Here is the cul&shy;mina&shy;tion of {{w|Bol&shy;shev&shy;ism|Bolsheviks}} after fifty years. (And the tradi&shy;tional Trotsky&shy;ists were better only be&shy;cause they were weaker.) But the Com&shy;mun&shy;ists have now sur&shy;vived so many ex&shy;posures{{dash}}{{w|Kron&shy;stadt|Kronstadt_rebellion}}, {{w|China|Maoism}}, {{w|Spain|Communist_Party_of_Spain}}, {{w|East Germany|East_Germany}}, {{w|Hungary|Hungarian_People's_Republic}}, {{p|197}}{{w|Poland|Polish_People's_Republic}}, and so on and so on{{dash}}that they will prob&shy;ably get over this one too. Even so, this is a par&shy;tic&shy;u&shy;larly clear case of the tra&shy;di&shy;tional func&shy;tion, fully docu&shy;mented and played out in the glare of pub&shy;li&shy;city, and it should be rammed home. How do they live with them&shy;selves, though? Have they for&shy;got&shy;ten how {{w|Marx|Karl_Marx}} {{l|re&shy;sponded|https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm}} to the {{w|Paris Com&shy;mune|Paris_Commune}} of 1871, and how the CGT used to lead rather than break strikes? They have changed in one way, though; they now betray re&shy;volu&shy;tions before they hap&shy;pen, not after.
 </div>

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 {{star}}
-'''{{w|Sorel|Georges_Sorel}}.'''&emsp;
+'''{{w|Sorel|Georges_Sorel}}.'''&emsp;Is he so com&shy;pletely for&shy;got&shy;ten? He is pretty well dis&shy;credited as a seri&shy;ous in&shy;tel&shy;lectual figure (and of course he wasn{{t}} an anarch&shy;ist or a the&shy;oreti&shy;cian of syn&shy;dic&shy;al&shy;ism), but he did have some good ideas, and it{{s}} odd that they haven{{t}} been men&shy;tioned. The general idea of the func&shy;tion of myths{{dash|{{qq|not de&shy;scrip&shy;tions of things but ex&shy;pres&shy;sions of a de&shy;term&shy;ina&shy;tion to act}}}}and the partic&shy;ular idea of the myth of the general strike both seem relev&shy;ant. Add the myth of the bar&shy;ri&shy;cades, the myth of the work&shy;ing class, the myth of the soviet, and you have a fairly good pic&shy;ture of what has hap&shy;pened. How he would have en&shy;joyed the at&shy;tempt to burn down the {{w|Bourse|Paris_Bourse}}!
 </div>