Gombin - French Leftism

French Leftism Author(s): Richard Gombin Source: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 7, No. 1/2 (Jan. - Apr.
, 1972), pp. 27-50 Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/259756 . Accessed: 20/01/2014 12:40
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Contemporary History.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.112.200.107 on Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:40:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
French
Leftism
Richard Gombin
The existence in France of a leftist movement is not in itself new; there have always been groups, societies, and grouplets of a more radical inclination than the existing parties of the left and extreme left. What is new is that they are attracting attention. I recently counted more than 100 books on the subject of the 'events' of May and June 1968, and that was only six months after the extinction of the revolt. Since then, the committed or descriptive literature must have grown in exponential proportions. Still, however closely we scrutinize all the textbooks of and political science to history political relating the comes rest to contemporary France, political spectrum on the left, with the Communist Party. Exceptionally, Temps Modernes has been cited as an example of revolutionary radicalism. All observers (or almost all) agree, however, that the Communist Party has lost its revolutionary drive and is becoming increasingly integrated in global society-in short, it has to all intents and purposes become a 'bourgeois' party. Even so, habits of thought and analysis, and the weight of traditional concepts, have continued to focus attention on orthodox communism as the true bearer of revolution. Furthermore, the feeble hold which the leftist movement had up to now on the masses meant that it was classed among the minor curiosities of the political scene. And the political scientists were as indifferent to it as the masses. However, leftism as a revolutionary movement, as a reflection on society and its historical evolution, certainly did exist; I would even say that in regard to doctrine it was most fruitful before May 1968. But it was only after that date that it won recognition as an independent phenomenon among journalists and social scientists. The reason for this sudden enthusiasm lies in the unforeseen and paroxystic activism of
27
HISTORY CONTEMPORARY the extreme left-wing groups and in the imitation of the young rebels' methods of contestation in the factories, offices, and high schools. Today, however, we are witnessing a growing gulf between the 'student commune' and the world of labour. Is leftism now dead? Is it unalterably restricted to the world of the university? To answer these questions we must look more closely at what I have called the leftist movement, distinguish between the varying kinds of revolutionary radicalism, describe their analytical and programmatic content, and, finally, place the movement in its position on the chessboard of the French revolutionary movement. This will enable us to appreciate the true significance of the movement in the social history of contemporary France. Leftism, in the widest sense of the term, may be defined as a revolutionary, extra-institutional, opposition movement; it is clearly a minority movement in comparison with the traditional left-wing parties, with their large memberships. Thus defined, the movement is on the left of the Communist Party and embraces neither the PSU (Parti Socialiste Unifie), which is more comparable with a typical party, although many of its parliamentary opposition members are attracted by leftist ideas, nor the trade unions a There remains, therefore, associations. or student considerable number of groups, grouplets, circles and committees functioning on a national or local level, or based in factories, offices, schools and universities.' Despite the infinity of nuances which distinguish the grouplets from each other, we can divide them into two basic from claim direct descent those which families: Marxism-Leninism, and those which do not. The first category includes the various Maoist and Trotskyist tendencies and the organized oppositional communists. The second includes all those who reject Marxist orthodoxy
the Ligue communiste, L'Association des jeunes pour le socialisme, or
' Groups organized on a national scale are those usually cited, such as
Vive la Revolution. In fact, the great majority of leftists are to be found in small groups of 10-20 members.
28
FRENCH LEFTISM
(however interpreted) as an infallible guide to thought and action. This family has been subject to diverse doctrinal and historical influences which we will attempt to define below. What seems to be central in the development of social and political conflicts in France during these last four or five years is the propagation of methods, ideas, and conceptions of which owe little to traditional very society Marxist-Leninist doctrine and practice. The boundary between the two families is not simply a faint demarcation line caused by trivial internal squabbles. A real gulf separates them: beyond their programmatic differences and allegiances to different ancestors, there is a total antinomy of two Weltanschauungen. Briefly, one could say that the family which has sprung directly from Marxism-Leninism adopts an attitude of conservation the (albeit revolutionary conservation): conservation of a revolutionary ideology and tradition in which the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks constitutes the central point of reference, in which Lenin is the eponymous hero and dialectical materialism the eternal truth. Marx haunts the background like a revered forebear, a pure theory given life and earthly form by the Bolshevik movement and its victory in 1917. Beyond this common source there are as many variations as there are interpreters of 'genius': Trotsky, Mao, Stalin, Enver Hodja, Fidel Castro, Ernest Guevara, Ho Chi Minh or even Yasser Arafat.2 The aim of these groups is to bring about a Bolshevik-type revolution in France. Furthermore, if the members of this family do not merge with the 'orthodox' communist it is movement, precisely because they accuse its leaders of having moved far away from the model, of having betrayed the teachings of the gospel. Thus, all these groups claim that they, and not the Communist Party (and the organizations which it controls) or the various parties which claim to be Marxist (Parti socialiste, PSU), are the faithful guardians of the true doctrine. The most common accusation which they make against the
2 In La cause du peuple (14 October 1970), the organ of the ex-Gauche proletarienne, which has Maoist leanings, Geismar is likened to Arafat, as leader of the 'popular resistance'.
29
CONTEMPORARY HISTORY
socialists and communists is that of 'betrayal': they seek to of a bring about a thorough-going implementation programme which has hitherto been watered down and only partially applied.3 These are extremists rather than leftists: willing to take to their extreme both a theory and a practice codified once and for all. Whatever the true role of the extremist groups has been in the events of recent years, there is no doubt that it has not yet gone beyond the stage of pure activism. I mean that the ideas which dominated these events, and the practices adopted, owed nothing to this movement. It is true that there has been a rush of new supporters (their members often increased two and threefold, as in the case of the Ligue communiste; some Maoist youth movements even made their first appearance during the 'events'), but this is a natural phenomenon at all times of social upheaval. It even came about that once the first activist fervour had died down, the only groups to remain in evidence were the extremists, stronger and better organized than they had ever been: the reason for this may be found in their support of principles of strict and centralized organization, while, in contrast, the real leftist movement progressively dissolved, since it was hostile to the very principle of central organization.4 At the present time, it does not seem that the real influence of the extremist movement is very great: even where Trotskyists or Maoists make the greatest efforts to promote a strike, it escapes their control and follows its own course; extremist ideas never
example, parliamentarism, tactically recommended by Lenin, has become a normal part of the process, whereas clandestinity and the implacable struggle against the bourgeois regime have long since been abandoned. 4 The extremists were obliged to pay the price of regained popularity by watering down some of their principles, especially programmatic and tactical ones. Such was the vogue for spontaneity that no group could afford to reject its premises. Hence the unnatural marriages between Maoism and spontaneity ('Mao-spontex', the ex-Gauche proletarienne, Vive la Revolution, etc.). No group was spared contamination by leftist ideas except, perhaps, the Lambertists (one of the nuances of Trotskyism), for whom the organizational question is basic, and the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of France, which was, incidentally, one of the few which did not increase the number of its supporters. 30
3 For
FRENCH LEFTISM
manage to take lasting root in the factories or offices in question. In truth, the role of the extremist organizations is closer to the surface, and this is why it takes on such a spectacular from a few character. cases, Apart exceptional Marxist-Leninist ideas have not found their way through to the masses. Indeed, Trotskyism found more favourable ground after the Liberation: at that time infiltration (entrisme, the anonymous or open participation in other left-wing organizations to gain control of both the rank and file and the leadership), the underhand capture of the Jeunesse socialiste and the temporary unpopularity of Stalinism carried the Fourth International to the crest of the wave. Present-day indifference to Marxism-Leninism of all varieties has its reverse side in the tremendous craze, particularly among young people, and not least among young workers, for leftism. What does leftism, as defined here, represent in comparison to extremism? First, there is its theoretical content, its analysis of society and of revolution; second, spontaneous activity, a means of confronting the authorities in all spheres, economic, social, political, and cultural. Above all, it is a widespread mood, which is in perfect harmony with both. In its theoretical content, leftism reflects the desire to replace Marxism-Leninism as the doctrine of revolution. In this sense, it is more than a mere rejuvenation of Marxism-it goes much further. Above all, it offers an alternative. As such, leftism does not date from May 1968-it goes back to 1917, perhaps even earlier. In France, the first attacks on orthodoxy came from within the radical movement itself. Immediately after the Liberation, young Trotskyists, disappointed by the 'missed opportunity' of autumn 1944, began to wonder whether revolution really was the aim of the Communist Party; whether Stalinism, as Trotsky claimed, was only a bureaucratic deformation of Leninism and the Soviet state
31
simply a degenerate workers' state.5 The heart of the matter was the nature of Soviet bureaucracy, which it is known that Trotsky, who had written a devastating critique of it, considered to be the ruling stratum of society. In other Marxist terms a words, a political phenomenon-in This of view had superstructure. point already been disputed before the war, within the Trotskyist movement itself; it was suggested that, far from constituting a stratum or caste which could easily be swept away, the Stalinist bureaucracy had become a true exploiting class, which could be dislodged only by a proletarian revolution.6 These young Trotskyists carried this analysis further by undertaking a detailed study of the social and economic system of the Russia of the Soviets; they came to the conclusion that Soviet bureaucracy was not only a class, based on the ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of the mass of workers, but further, that it was more firmly rooted than any bourgeoisie. It was the beneficiary of a more total exploitation than that of the classic capitalist system, and it had imposed a totalitarian system of government, which gave it protection from the opposition which a liberal bourgeoisie has to contend with.7 Seen in this light, the bureaucratic regime, far from being an 'historical accident', constituted the final stage in the development of mature capitalism. It was therefore the economic-political form towards which all advanced capitalist countries were bound to evolve; furthermore, it was the classes aspired: system to which the property-owning unchecked exploitation, undivided rule, no more opposition parties, no more independent trade unions, no more dissenting intellectuals.
5 A thesis put forward by Trotsky in, among other works, his classic The Revolution Betrayed (London 1937). du monde (Paris 1939). La bureaucratisation 6Cf. Bruno R[izzi], James Burnham's book, The Managerial Revolution (New York 1941), takes up this analysis in a totally different context. 7The Trotskyists in question were, of course, obliged to leave the Fourth International and founded the Socialisme ou Barbarie group and a journal of the same name in 1949. For their analysis of the Soviet regime cf. its first issue, March-April 1949, especially the lengthy article
entitled 'Socialisme ou Barbarie'.
32
FRENCH LEFTISM
To be sure, the Socialisme ou Barbarie group, which produced these analyses, still included itself in the framework of Marxist analysis (which it later abandoned); nonetheless it had made a breach in the hard shell of orthodox communism and extremism (Trotskyism, Bordigism, etc.); to the extent that it showed how contemporary communism was tending to exploit the potentialities of monopolist capitalism, it on the former as the revolutionary threw doubt of Marxism. Therefore, all through the fifties interpretation and in the early sixties the group considered that its chief task was to bring revolutionary theory up to date.8 The critique of Leninism as an ideology of bureaucratic state capitalism and the analysis of the economic evolution of modern societies meant that the breach was wide open; it was to be made wider still by former members of the Communist Party who attacked Marxism on philosophical grounds. What was called philosophical revisionism was not an entirely unheard-of enterprise either: in the early twenties George Lukacs and Karl Korsch, to name only two, had dared to re-examine Marxist concepts in the light of Hegelian philosophy. This led to the study, invocation, and veneration of the writings of the young Marx, which was the more striking since between the wars there were, in France, very few Marxian studies worthy of the name. Those who had attempted such studies (Paul Nizan, Georges Politzer, Henri Lefebvre and a few others)9 were soon to espouse the most exemplary ideological orthodoxy. This 'glaciation'l ? period was to last until 1956. Following the founding of the review Arguments in 1957 and the accompanying of a number of publication 'revisionist' works, the unorthodox study of Marx's writings
8 Cf., for example, P. Chaulieu: 'Sur la dynamique du capitalisme' (August-September 1953) and especially the series of articles by the same author: 'On the content of socialism', which began in the July-September 1955 issue of Socialisme ou Barbarie. 9 Together with N. Guterman, Lefebvre translated the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of Marx and gave promise of becoming an outstanding dialectician. He took up philosophical studies again after 1956. 1 The term used by Edgar Morin in Autocritique (Paris 1959) to explain the obedience ac cadaver of intellectuals to the Party.
33
blossomed in France. The aim of the Arguments writers was twofold: to confront Marxism with the facts; to raise anew the question of revolutionary theory. 1 It was an ambitious undertaking which was bound not to succeed since it presupossed that Marxism was a science and that all that was necessary was to test its propositions empirically. The interest of the review lay elsewhere: its demystification of Stalinism as a scholasticism was to have a lasting effect on the entire intellectual left. After this to the contributors 'destructuration', Arguments concentrated on theoretical research, more flexible and less dogma-ridden in its approach. In other words, on the discovery (or rather, the rediscovery) of Marx as a dialectician, strongly influenced by Hegel and quite remote from the 'dialectical' materialism immortalised by Stalinist philosophy. 2 In fact, there remained very little to revise, but the popularisation in France of the discussions which had taken place in Eastern and Central Europe during the twenties and thirties was of great importance in the subsequent evolution of the New Left. The French left then discovered History and Class Consciousness by Lukacs (the first French edition was published in 1960), and the works of thinkers such as Korsch, Adorno, Marcuse, and Horkheimer. All these discussions and publications meant that labels could be rejected, thought freed of dogma, and what was 'most profound in the method and inspiration of Marx and These were the guiding principles Hegel' rediscovered.'3 behind French revisionism, but in fact it went beyond these objectives and contributed largely to putting Marxism into perspective: to seeing it as an expression of the real movement of society at a given period. The writings of Karl Korsch, virtually unknown in France at this time, were published and discussed; they had considerable influence on
' The contributors were chiefly former members of the PCF like Morin, Duvignaud, Axelos, Barthes and Fougeyrollas, who had left it in the fifties. For revisionism in France, see George Lichtheim, Marxism in Modern France (London 1966). I 2 To which Lenin had given official approval as early as 1908 in his Materialism and Empiriocriticism. I 3 E. Morin, 'La r6vision generalisee', Arguments, No. 14, 1959. 34
FRENCH LEFTISM
the subsequent radicalisation of revolutionary theory. In Korsch's view, Marxism is closely related to the theory of bourgeois revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; hence, in Marxism, traces of Jacobin concepts and an ineradicable attachment to the political forms of bourgeois democracy (parties, parliaments, etc.). In any event, for him Marxism was the theory of the proletarian movement only during the first phase (until 1848); it later became petrified as an ideology, that is, the expression of a false consciousness.' 4 Revisionism continued to set Marxism in perspective and to treat it as a doctrine which had its place in history, but which had therefore to an extent been overtaken; but apart from this, revisionism introduced into the debate and, above all, propagated, the concept of alienation. The concepts of alienation and reification were discussed in the light of Marxian texts of the period 1843-48 and of Lukacs' book, which was central in this respect. Most important, however, the debate went beyond the Arguments context; an entire section of Marx's Hegelian heritage was taken up by avant-garde groups and circles, the representatives of the young generation. This generation was the first since the twenties to be unmarked by Stalinism; it had forged its first theoretical and critical weapons in the battle for destalinization, in the context of the Budapest uprising of 1956 and of the Algerian war. Thus the period 1957-62 was central to the emergence of the New Left in France. It was during this half decade that Marxism lost its doctrinal primacy among an entire generation of young intellectuals and workers concerned with politics. After this radical (in the etymological sense) critique of Marxism, leftism moved on to a second stage: theoretical elaboration. There were several gaps to be filled. First of all, the revolutionary phenomenon had to be placed in its proper economic and social context. The orthodox view is that all
'4In addition to Marxisme et philosophie (1964), a collection of articles which had already appeared in Arguments, see 'Dix theses sur le marxisme aujourd'hui' and the introduction by Axelos in Arguments, No. 16, 1959.
35
social changes have their origins in economic contradictions. The leftists began by rejecting this strict economic determinism, which they termed pure economism. They pointed out that Western society was not moving toward the economic crisis, the apocalyptic catastrophe which Trotsky had declared imminent as far back as 1938, in his Transitional Programme. Furthermore, they maintained that the mere modification of structairal factors (such as the nationalization of the means of production) was not enough, on its own, to liberate man or to emancipate society. They had drawn conclusions from the 'socialist' experiments of the USSR and the popular democracies.' 5 The result was an analysis of the new forms which bondage may take in a bureaucratic system: social, cultural, sexual and, of course, economic alienation, without this last achieving the dignity of the final cause. Thus the spotlight of theoretical analysis moved from the study of economic factors (methods of production, the tendency to a falling rate of profit, concentration of monopolies) towards a critique of everyday life. In second place, closely linked to this analysis, came considerations on organization in general and the organization of the revolutionary movement in particular. The critique of everyday life, as the kernel of the new radical theory, takes the form of an absolute reaction against Stalinist dogmatism and against the efforts of its sycophants in France. As Henri Lefebvre remarks, the post-war showed its utter generation of left-wing intellectuals in the face of the theoretical problems which impotence arose: they either sought refuge in party dogma or turned for inspiration to the unreal and the abstract. Concrete everyday reality as it was or as it could be escaped them.' 6 This critique marks a total break with the preceding generation: it is concerned with the modern world and with
'1 On the fading of these last illusions, see R. Bourt, 'Voyage en Yougoslavie', and H. Bell, 'Le stalinisme en Allemagne orientale', in Socialisme ou Barbarie, January-February 1951. Cf. also C. Lefort, 'Le totalitarisme sans Staline', ibid., No. 19, 1956. 6H. Lefebvre, Critique de la vie quotidienne (2nd ed. 1958), 250-51.
36
FRENCH LEFTISM
its future. Its starting point is, therefore, a view of the world In this which Henri Lefebvre had christened modernity.' modern world of accumulated production, abundance, if not yet a reality, is clearly to be seen on the horizon. Large-scale cumulative production and the unprecedented technical and scientific progress which characterize modern society (in the advanced sector) enable us to look ahead to what has not yet been accomplished. However, there is a distinct gap between the sphere of technology and production and the life of the individual. The latter has not caught up with the former: indeed, it is standing still. The fact that this visible possibility is not attainable in present-day society makes the gap greater and intensifies consciousness of it; the alienation of man here reaches its peak. This separation between man and what he has produced, between man and his own life, is not, apparently, accompanied by any critical thought; on the contrary, the further man sinks into alienation the more conformist he becomes. Contradiction has been replaced by the cult of novelty for novelty's sake (modernism) characteristic of a society which is devoid of poetry. To be sure, the Romantics had already begun to question a technically oriented, monotonous world, but they could resolve the contradictions of the society of their time only by resorting to the ideal, by combining the life of their imagination with their experience of life as actually lived (this can be seen in the case of Baudelaire). But their work, which was continued by Lautreamont and Rimbaud, soon degenerated, at the end of the nineteenth century, into verbalism and redundancy. Dadaism and surrealism struck the final blow at the language of alienation and destroyed it. Then, even surrealism became absorbed in the creation of works of art. In 1946, Henri Lefebvre concluded that it was up to the avant-garde to continue the efforts of their illustrious ancestors (in the first edition of his Critique de la vie quotidienne, published in 1947). Since before the war surrealism had been sinking into an
1 7H.
duction.
Lefebvre, Introduction a la modernite (Paris 1962), Intro37
CONTEMPORARY HISTORY academism which became almost mundane after the Liberation,' 8 but it did not fail to produce the contradiction of its own conformism. Immediately after the second world war, there occurred a phenomenon analogous to that which had taken place in 1916-20: an attempt to scuttle art completely, to find a life-style which would enrich reality. Clearly, these fumbling attempts to sketch a cultural revolution were, in intensity, a mere pale copy of what Tzara or Jacques Vache had done, but they did succeed in launching some young people (a minimal number, it is true) on a new search for the absolute. The outstanding personality of those years was Isidore Isou, who was, like Tristan Tzara, of Rumanian origin. In his view, the essential need was the need to create: through creation man raises himself and becomes a sort of God. Isou propagated his ideas through the Lettriste movement, which he founded in 1946. Fairly abstruse, they appealed only briefly to the young dissenters who had followed him. Nevertheless, the movement led to the formation of the various avant-garde groups which Internationale in the joined eventually together situationniste.' 9 For some, lettrisme represented an attack on culture; in 1952, breaking with Isou, they founded the Internationale lettriste and concentrated on the destruction of art by rejecting works of art and extolling the liberating forces of town-planning. To some extent the Internationale lettriste became politicized as the search for a life-style took shape. Its amalgamation with two other avant-garde cultural groups led, in 1957, to the birth of the Situationist International. In the years which followed, the latter developed a theory of the modern world which stressed everyday life. The influence of Henri Lefebvre on the formation of concepts (the emphasis on everyday existence, the trivialization of life, alienated leisure activities, etc.) cannot be denied, although his approach is sociological and,
18 See J. L. Bedouin's partisan Vingt ans de surrealisme (1939-1959) (Paris 1961). 9 On the Lettriste movement and the Internationale Lettriste see J. L. Brau, Cours, camarade, le vieux monde est derriere toi (Paris 1968), 59 et seq.
38
FRENCH LEFTISM
according to the contesters, no more than sociological. But in were continuing and other respects the situationists a tradition: whole dada, surrealism, lettrisme; rejuvenating it-and but they completed perhaps carried it even further--with the help of concepts inspired by Hegel, Marx, and Lukacs. theory, life in the modern According to situationist world is nothing more than survival (life governed by economic imperatives). What matters in industrial societies is the quantitative, the consumable. Consumption and survival are assured by the Welfare State; it is the only permitted existence, and in these societies only the permissible is feasible.2 0 The consumer society corresponds to the consumer economy, which has replaced the production economy. It is characterized by the unrestrained production of commodities. But this accumulated production, despite the riches which are poured onto the market, means that the only possible transformation of the world by economic means must be a transformation into a purely economic world. Increased wealth can only bring about increased survival but does not have any qualitative effect. The quantification of exchange, carried to the extreme, will reduce man to an object and trivialize daily life: both space and time have been unified by capitalist production into an 'immobile monotony'.2 1 Even tourism imitates the circulation of commodities-the package deal, the predictable routes and the artificial entertainments. Town-planning provides a concentrated example of the identification of life with a mere show, an existence made up of passivity and contemplation. The decline and degeneration of everyday life corresponds to the transformation of modern capitalism. In the
2
oThe
savoir-vivre d l'usage des jeunes generations (Paris 1967); and in the 12

issues of the review Internationale volume by Van Gennep, Amsterdam 2 1 G. Debord, op. cit., 137. Situationniste 1970). (published in one
Debord,
main themes of the situationist analysis are to be found in G. La societe du spectacle (Paris 1967); R. Vaneigem, Traite de
39
HISTORY CONTEMPORARY societies of the nineteenth century, production-oriented whose rationale was the accumulation of capital, the commodity became a fetish in so far as it was considered to constitute a product (object) and not a social relationship. In modern societies, where consumption is the ultima ratio, all human relationships have been modelled on this pattern; everyone has been impregnated with the rationale of commodity exchange. This is why life as actually lived increasingly resembles a theatrical performance: everything in real life is a show. This is the phenomenon the situationists call 'spectacle' (Lefebvre's conception is more neutral: the modern spectacle, in his view, is simply a matter of the contemplative attitude of its participants). Spectacle takes over when commodity exchange succeeds in totally dominating the life of society. Thus, in the 'spectacular' commodity economy, alienated consumption is added to alienated production. The modern pariah, Marx's proletarian, is not so much the producer separated from his product as the consumer. We have reached a point where the exchange determines their use value. The value of commodities consumer has become a consumer of illusions. In addition, the 'spectacular' society, originally found in has spread to underdeveloped economies, developed countries which, although they lack the material base for social organization of this sort, have imitated the techniques of spectacle of their former colonizers. As a result, in the East as in the West, in the Third World as in industrial societies, the ruling dimension in life is the quantitative: economic imperatives impose their values on the whole of life. 'Only objects can be measured-which explains why exchange reifies.'2 2 Despite this devastating criticism of the consumer society, the situationists deny that they despise consumer goods as such. In their view it is not the consumption of goods which is alienating, but the way in which their choice is conditioned and the ideology which leads to this state of affairs. For everyday life is subject to 'totalitarian manipulation', which determines everything, including the pattern of our behaviour.
2 2
R. Vaneigem, op. cit., 89.
40
FRENCHLEFTISM It is clear that in this analysis of alienation, the situationists, like Lefebvre, are following the writings of the young Marx, notably the 1844 economic-philosophical manuscripts. Their arguments on reification and on the fetishization of commodities are drawn from the Theses on Feuerbach and from a passage in Capital entitled 'The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof'.2 3 But they do not claim in any way that this is the only 'true' interpretation of Marx; in fact, their intention is to go further than Marx did, and it may be said that, in the current sense of the word, they are not Marxists. What is more, their conception of Marxist theory derives from the writings of Karl Korsch, which we mentioned earlier. They 'go further' because, as they see it, the separation which for Marx was limited to the world of production has now become universalized; the whole social praxis has been split up into reality and illusion. Between man and his works, between man and his desires and dreams, a great number of barriers have interposed themselves. In a cyberneticized society (towards which we are moving), the power of organization will have replaced the power of exploitation: the alienating mediations will have been multiplied to the point of suffocation. In the end, the masters themselves will become slaves, mere levers of the organization. This critique of everyday life is not intended to be just a theory; it is supposed to lead to a revolutionary praxis. The contradictions of the modern world make possible the transition from one to the other. What gives rise to the great contradiction undermining consumer societies is that cumulative production unleashes forces which suppress economic needs. The internal rationale of the system demands continuous development, and only the quantitative and the consumable are left for the individual. When primary needs are saturated, pseudo-needs are 'manufactured' (a second car, a more refined refrigerator, the useless gadget). Increasingly, this process degrades everyday life. But at the
2 3Book 1, part 1, chapter I, IV. It is interesting to note that for 'orthodox' Marxists this passage clashes with the rest of Capital and the works of the mature Marx. Althusser calls it the 'last trace of Hegelian influence, and very deplorable'. 'Avertissement' to Capital (Paris 1969),
22.
41
same time immense technical progress provides a glimpse of new worlds, of satisfactions not yet experienced. Hence the critique of everyday life, at first, is realized from within: it is the criticism of what is real as against what is possible.24 The extent and whereabouts of this internal critique vary according to the different views taken: Henri Lefebvre is optimistic, and declares that it is in and through leisure and recreation that modern man will revolt against the and trivialization of everyday life. The breakdown situationists believe that leisure itself is alienated and that therefore it, too, should be challenged. There is agreement, however, on the hard kernel of the inherent contradiction in this system of everyday life: the outward forms of life are in conflict with their content; they have become divorced from each other.2 5 This contradiction produces a consciousness of separation, discontent, and a corresponding revolutionary praxis. But here a difficulty arises: opposition to the dominant class is not straightforward, because that opposition is itself a victim of mystification. The spectacle has invaded not only society but also its contradiction: opposition has itself become a spectacle (and thus ideological, in the Marxist sense of the term). In other words, alongside the pure and simple acceptance of the system by the 'silent majority', there is a revolt which is purely contemplative. Dissatisfaction has itself become a commodity, and it is difficult for the dissatisfied to escape from his role of being dissatisfied. Technological civilization, while making happiness and liberty the order of the day, has invented the ideology of happiness and liberty, that is, two 'essences' which are the exact opposite of their true meaning.26 Modern man entertaining himself is not really happy: he is playing a part which has been imposed on him, he is conforming to a stereotype. The radical nature of this conception is clearly apparent. The departure which it marked from the position of the
Lefebvre, Critique de la vie quotidienne, 16. Nonetheless, Lefebvre's ideas go considerably further than those of sociologists like Georges Friedmann, who contrast leisure and work, man finding his only true fulfilment today in the former. 2 6 R. Vaneigem, op. cit., 44.
2 2 5
4 H.
42
FRENCH LEFTISM
leftwing movement as a whole of the past half century gives it a millenarian and heretical colouring. On one point, however, it is entirely orthodox: on the question of revolution. The bearer of revolution, the emancipator of humanity remains, for the Situationist International as for the other leftists, the proletariat. In this regard, they are a long way from the theory of Marcuse, whose marginal man is not vouchsafed any privileged function-indeed the reverse. Let us try to define the leftist concept of the proletariat, which is far from clear. The difficulty relates to the break with the economic interpretation of the class struggle. Thus, in a cyberneticized society, the proletariat will include 'just about' even the masters will be (since everyone 7 to one variant, included in this programmed).2 According are all those who are concept incapable of modifying the and time which for their consumption allocates space society (the rulers being those who organize this space and time and who even dispose of a margin of personal choice in their own lives).2 8 Lastly, the proletariat might consist of the 'historical working class plus the majority of white-collar workers'.2 9 Guy Debord, the leader of the Situationist International, the modern provides some definitions: proletariat, he writes, is made up of the 'immense' majority of workers who have lost all control over their lives; it is reinforced by the disappearance of the peasantry and by the extension of the logic of the factory to a large proportion of the intellectual and liberal professions.3 0 Thus defined (or not), only the proletariat can bring about the abolition of classes: not because it is made up of producers (no 'ripening' of objective conditions is foreseen, particularly with regard to the forces of production and capitalist concentration; the concept of the proletariat itself has moved away from the essential notion of the 'producer' which is found in Marx and his spiritual heirs), but because it alone is capable of attaining knowledge of its own alienation.
2 7Internationale Situationniste, April 1962. Th. Frey in the issue for March 1966. 2 8 Ibid., January 1963, 'Notes Editoriales'. 29 Ibid., September 1969, 'Le commencement 3 G. Debord, op. cit., 95.
Cf. also the article by d'une 6poque'.
43
CONTEMPORARY
HISTORY
It is clear that the situationists have completely swung round as regards the conception of Lenin or the later Marx. The subjective, 'philosophical' condition is placed in the forefront: the proletariat will become the power only by becoming class-conscious. Which is precisely what Lukacs meant when he wrote that reification 'puts its stamp on the entire consciousness of man', and that the proletariat alone can escape the condition laid down for it because it is In the view of the situationists, conscious of its history.3 this subjective factor is fed by the violence of resentment. The role of the proletariat thus defined is, indeed, an historical role. It had always attempted to free humanity from its alienation, but always to the advantage of other social classes. In this process, alienation became constantly more oppressive; in the historical struggle against natural alienation, alienation became social.32 Henceforward, the proletariat must abolish all alienation, that is, abolish all forms of alienation. The dialectic, and the dialectic alone, allows man to attain to knowledge of all forms of alienation, and particularly of its most dangerous form, 'spectacular' alienation. The proletarian is, or will become, a dialectician. Revolutionary theory will therefore not be a scientific system which states the law of evolution for all; it will be comprehension of the struggle; it is this comprehension which the revolutionary will attempt to broaden. But there is no question of relapsing into anarchism, for anarchists are concerned only with the result of the class struggle and not with its method; they cherish the illusion that they can reach their ends by economic struggle alone, and their negation of the state remains ideological. From the anarchists, however, the situationists retain the 'global' refusal and the critique, in many ways prophetic, of a Bakunin.3 3 How will the proletariat, which is the subject of the revolution, make the revolution? It has no really
G. Lukacs, Histoire et conscience de classe (Paris 1960), 129, 95. R. Vaneigem, 'Banalit6s de base', Internationale Situationniste, April 1962.
31
32
33
G. Debord, op. cit., 73.
44
FRENCH LEFTISM
revolutionary past, so it will have to reinvent everything in order that the supreme act be accomplished: the realization of art and the simultaneous abolition of class.34 Where does youth come in? It is commonly believed that the French leftists, under the influence of Marcuse and the radical American students, reserve a leading role for youth in the revolutionary process. In fact, before May 1968, the entire extreme left was united in rejecting the idea of a privileged role for youth as a sociological category; most of the grouplets of young people saw themselves as junior branches of the adult parties (often as yet non-existent or 'in formation'). The events of May-June 1968 brought about a partial re-evaluation of the role of youth, but there remains a somewhat paradoxical phenomenon-'theoretical' contempt on the one hand, and the active role of the young on the other. Thus, if we look at contestation in the universities in the years 1966-68, especially what is generally called 'the disorders of the University of Strasbourg' or 'the Strasbourg scandal', we see that these disorders, which were to influence the evolution of the University of Nanterre in 1967-68, were to some extent inspired by the situationists. One of them, an 'event' in itself, was the publication of a pamphlet, signed by the local section of the UNEF (Students' Union), but in fact produced by the situationist Mustapha Khayati, and entitled 'De la misere en milieu etudiant consideree sous ses sexuel et aspects economique, politique, psychologique, notamment intellectual et de quelques moyens pour y remedier'.3 5 In this, as in those writings which evaluate the results of and draw conclusions from these events,36 the
4 Cf. Internationale June 1958, 'Notes Editoriales'. Situationniste, the situationists During the first period of their activity (1957-62), treated art as a privileged sphere to be revolutionized, as the most alienated; cf. 'Appel aux intellectuels et artistes revolutionnaires' in the December 1959 issue. 3 5st 1966. There were several editions and ed., A.F.G.E.S., translations into other languages. The English translation appeared under the title 'On the Poverty of Student Life. A Consideration of Its and Notably Intellectual Economic, Political, Sexual, Psychological Aspects and of a Few Ways to Cure It'. An expanded version appeared in Britain under the title Ten Days That Shook the University. 3 6 'Nos buts et nos methodes dans le scandale de Strasbourg',
45
situationists assert that the one and only task of students is to merge with the mass of workers. The student is depicted in a contemptible light and shown to belong to the most alienated of sociological categories. He is vilified even more for believing in an illusory autonomy and for elevating his mere survival to the dignity of a life style: he exemplifies false political consciousness in its pure state. In these conditions he is incapable of making a proper critique of the university, his role in society or his own alienation. In the same piece, however, Khayati foresees a period of contestation, and concedes that youth appears to be its instigator.3 7 But he sees youth only as the harbinger of an imminent revolutionary eruption. It is simply that the profound social crisis is more acutely felt by the young. It is for the proletariat to liberate humanity from the 'spectacular' society. The onus is on the proletariat to invent a new world in which the realization of poetry is possible. That is, the realization of free creative activity, because communication will not be manipulated and productive labour will be abolished, and also because there will be no and no imposed specialization compartmentalized hierarchical authority. This cultural and subjective view of the revolutionary act represents a complete break with the system of Marx and Engels, which concentrates on economic and objective factors. However, it renews a tradition which owes something to Romanticism and Symbolism, but whose distant origins are to be found both in chivalry and in the millenarian sects.3 8 The will to change life almost takes precedence over
Internationale Situationniste, October 1967. At the beginning of the
academic year 1966-67, students who supported were elected to the leadership of the local section (UNEF). On the advice of some situationists they union to produce a number of situationist tracts the situationist theses of the students union used the funds of the and pamphlets; they
then dissolved their own union section, arguing that all unions are mystifying and bureaucratic. The whole affair is related in the October 1967 issue of the review. 3 7 De la misere en milieu 6tudiant . ., op. cit., 15. 3 8 Two sentences are significant: 'Lautr6amont has said everything' (R. Vaneigem, 'Banalit6s de base', Internationale Situationniste, No. 8), and 'It is millenarism ... which is a modern revolutionary tendency, 46
FRENCH LEFTISM
the will to transform the world. After half a century of and goals centred on the methods revolutionary objective, the scientific, the rational and the dogmatic, it seems that the new revolutionaries, in reaction, are demanding 'everything, and straight away'. The affirmation of man's subjectivity is clearly a way of arming him against the assaults of totalitarianism, which uses the collective interest as its justification. As an alternative to the materialist and production-oriented world in which they live, the leftists advocate a play-oriented civilization, disinterested like that of medieval chivalry but with no slaves: a civilization where the gift replaces exchange and where play and free creativity replace productive labour.3 9 The principle of social organization on which the new world will be based is generalized self-administration. As an example of this, all the leftists (cf. the Noir et Rouge, the Correspondance Ouvrieres, the Revolution Informations Internationale, etc.) quote the workers council experiments. The 'council' phase, common to most revolutions, will be maintained; these spontaneously created councils will lead and complete the revolutionary process. But the trickiest problem, that which divides the whole leftist movement, relates to the organization of the movement itself. There are two opposing schools of thought and a variety of attitudes in between. The 'organizational school' considers that 'council' communism (as opposed to party communism) should become the watchword. In the pre-revolutionary period there must be a central revolutionary organization to propagate the idea of councils, to help the workers to achieve consciousness of their own strength, and to make men's minds receptive to the coming revolution. This organization would not be a party in the traditional sense because it would not reproduce the fundamental relationship of the capitalist system-the
which still lacks the consciousness of being no more than historical' (G. Debord, op. cit., 116). 39The intellectual origins of French leftism are studied in greater
detail in my Projet revolutionnaire. Elements d'une sociologie des veenementsde mai-juin1968 (Paris1969).
47
CONTEMPORARY HISTORY As a result, no division between rulers and ruled.4 could nor develop any leadership be formed. bureaucracy to the opposite view, any organization intended According to 'help' the proletariat would rapidly develop into an ordinary party. No factor outside the proletariat can lead it to consciousness of itself. The proletariat can make progress only to the extent that it achieves consciousness of its role through its own situation and praxis. Parties correspond to a particular stage in historical development; today the fight is not only against private property but against exploitation in all its forms. The proletariat must solve its own problems. If, in the middle of a revolutionary crisis, the workers' councils should fall into the hands of some authoritarian organization (a hypothesis envisaged by those who advocate organization to 'safeguard' the autonomy of the councils), that would be a In these sign that the class is not yet ripe for revolution.4 circumstances, the avant-garde will regroup during the course of the struggle, within the very heart of the production process and wherever the need arises. The only conceivable possibility is the proliferation of small autonomous groups organized at the place of their activity: apart from that, there can be no question of anything but information work, theoretical 'clarification' carried out within groups which are very loosely organized, without precise structures, without predetermined conditions of membership, and without exact frontiers to define their activity. The interest of a study of leftism in France, which this article has far from exhausted, derives from two factors. First, during these last twenty years a theoretical and programmatic system has been progressively built up, from the stammerings of a handful of Trotskyist dissidents to the for International priority search by the Situationist
4 0 This view has been defended by Chaulieu in a series of articles. Cf. his 'Reponse au camarade Pannekoek' in Socialisme ou Barbarie, April-June 1954, and 'Proletariat et organisation', ibid., April-May 1959. 41 Cf. C. Lefort, 'Discussion sur le probleme du parti revolutionnaire', ibid., July-August 1952 (under the pseudonym of C. Montal), and 'Organisation et Parti', ibid., November-December 1958.
48
FRENCH LEFTISM
theoretical-practical coherence. This is not the place to judge the validity of the system; but the absolutely unprecedented fact should be stressed that it is the first attempt on this scale to provide an alternative to Marxism-Leninism. It is true that dissident interpretations within the communist movement have been many during the last fifty years. But all left-wing dissension has been in the name of Marxism-Leninism. The attractive force of organized communism was so strong (both for the masses and for the intellectuals) that any renewal of doctrine could only be made under the banner of a return to the source. The ultra-left German-Dutch group which came out of the German Communist Workers Party is a good illustration of this phenomenon: when, in the 1920s, Gorter and Ruhle Pannekoek, proposed council communism as an alternative to party communism, it was in the name of a properly understood and authentic Marxism. It is true that the Communist Party still attracts the majority of the French workers, but the terrain has changed: today it appeals to different sociological and intellectual categories from those of the past. Furthermore, it is no longer a party of global struggle, but an opposition party, operating within the framework of bourgeois institutions. This brings us to the second factor which makes the study of contemporary leftism interesting. Leftism, which is intended to be a revolutionary theory, that is, to express modern reality, has in fact found, in the events of recent years, the first signs of confirmation. Of course, an inventory, analysis, and classification of the forms which social conflicts have taken during the past decade would have to be made.4 2 But what one can learn from the press and specialized inquiries indicates a remarkable renewal of the forms of social conflict. The widespread character of the occupation of factories and offices (not to mention the universities), the of the hierarchical of wage questioning principle, differentials, the direct takeover of certain public services (such as creches), are international phenomena; but in
4 21 have sketched an outline of this sort of study in 'The Ideology and Practice of Contestation Seen through Recent Events in France', in Anarchism Today, ed. Apter and Joll (London 1971).
49
France the study of these phenomena is particularly interesting because they occurred on an unprecedented scale in May-June 1968, and this has been interpreted as a prefiguration of a generalized critique of everyday life. The festive atmosphere of these events has been remarked upon, as have the freedom of speech and the formation of autonomous groups which, as at Nantes, even took over control of economic sectors. During these six weeks theory and practice seemed to meet. May one conclude from this that communism has definitely been replaced in the revolutionary firmament? There is no reason to assert that spontaneous contestation has irrevocably dethroned the classic strike. Similarly, it is difficult to conclude from the period 1968-70 that leftism, as a praxis, was the last Romantic leap of a world on the way to domestication. The fact remains that the leftist theory, which sees itself as the systematization of several kinds of dissent, deserves to be known: does it not claim the world as its own?
50

Gombin - French Leftism

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Gombin - French Leftism

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

French Leftism Author(s): Richard Gombin Source: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 7, No. 1/2 (Jan. - Apr.

entitled 'Socialisme ou Barbarie'.

Lefebvre, Introduction a la modernite (Paris 1962), Intro37

savoir-vivre d l'usage des jeunes generations (Paris 1967); and in the 12

R. Vaneigem, op. cit., 89.

Cf. also the article by d'une 6poque'.

G. Debord, op. cit., 73.

Вам также может понравиться