Alain Krivine Archive | ETOL Main Page
From Intercontinental Press, Vol. 6, No. 25, July 1, 1968, pp. 628–630.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
|
Following are excerpts from an important interview with Alain Krivine, one of the central leaders of the French student movement and a leader of the Jeunesse Communiste Révolutionnaire (JCR – Revolutionary Communist Youth). The interview was obtained by Mary-Alice Waters June 2 and appeared in full in the June 21 issue of the U.S. socialist weekly The Militant. |
Mary-Alice Waters: To begin with, could you give us some background on the development of the student movement in France during the last few months?
Alain Krivine: The student movement began, in a real sense, on March 22 at the University of Nanterre ... On the evening of March 21 there was a demonstration in front of American Express in Paris, and some of the windows of the building were broken by the students. One of the Nanterre students, who is a leader of the JCR, was arrested that night by the police and accused of having organized this demonstration.
He was arrested at 7 p.m., and by 9 p.m. a huge crowd of Nanterre students had assembled at the university. The different student organizations of the far left had set up loudspeakers to inform the students of what had happened. The students agreed upon a new form of struggle never before seen in France – they decided to occupy the school until the comrade, Xavier Langlade, was released ...
The occupation lasted all night, and the next day a new organization developed, again almost spontaneously. It took its name from the day of the occupation of the university – the March 22 Movement.
In the beginning this movement was almost entirely composed of unorganized students who had never before engaged in political activity. But it also included some political organizations – the National Union of French Students [UNEF], which at Nanterre is led by the JCR, the JCR itself, and certain anarchist groups which are rather numerous and divided at Nanterre ... the Union of Communist Students refused to participate in the movement, characterizing it as ultra-leftist and anarchist. The Maoists, in the beginning at least, characterized the movement – as “100 percent bourgeois.” Later they tried to integrate themselves in the movement.
At the beginning of May there was a second spark which started the movement going again and led to the thoroughgoing political crisis in France today. On the second or third of May ... the fascists of the “Occident” (“West”) group decided to clean up the University of Nanterre ... In order to meet this threat, the students at Nanterre began to arm themselves with clubs and helmets ... The fascists decided to cancel their meeting and to occupy the Latin Quarter in Paris the next day instead ...
At that point all the vanguard organizations of the student left, with the exception of the Communists, decided that they should occupy the Sorbonne ...
During the next week there were big demonstrations on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, with 20,000 to 50,000 students participating and some young workers joining us ... On Thursday night, May 9, the JCR held a huge meeting which had been planned for several weeks. It was decided to turn it into an open forum for all the groups to discuss what to do. About 5,000 participated.
The next day, May 10, all the organizations on the left, with the exception (as usual) of the Communist Students, called for a demonstration in the Latin Quarter at 5 p.m. ... That evening, the entire massive column of demonstrators who had marched 10 or 15 miles across Paris – there were probably 20,000 by then, mostly students but also some young workers – decided to return to the Latin Quarter. That became the first famous night of the barricades ...
The Communist Students, using loudspeakers, called on all the students to leave the Latin Quarter, to disperse and go home. The militants of the JCR and UNEF called on the students to remain in the Latin Quarter and occupy it throughout the night ...
M.W.: In the United States, as here, the Communist Party has been attacking the JCR particularly, and the students in general, as being ultraleftist, adventurist, and trying to divide the working class. Why are they so fearful of the student movement?
A.K.: It is important to note that almost the whole student movement – those who participated, in the struggle – is to the left of the Communist Party ... They reject reformist politics, they reject the CP’s theory of peaceful coexistence, they reject Stalinism.
There are two main reasons for this. On the one hand, at first, we did not realize the impact that our activities have had in the student milieu during the last two years. The principal positions developed by the JCR – a critique of the CP, of Mitterrand and Company – have become mass themes absolutely accepted by virtually the whole student movement. The full implications of the long and patient activities of the vanguard groups, the impact of our propaganda, revealed itself during the current upsurge.
Second, the attitude of the CP itself has contributed to this rejection of the CP. Since the beginning of the movement, and even now, the CP has attacked the students very violently, accusing them of being led by ultra-leftists, which, of course, only gives additional authority to the leaders ...
One can say without underestimation that in the political arena – that is, among the politicized students – the CP is only a “handful” in comparison with the organizations of the vanguard. They will continue to have influence in the student milieu of course, but they have suffered a tremendous blow ...
M.W.: What are the Action Committees and what role do they play?
A.K.: ... Since no organization had hegemony over the whole student movement, the students felt the necessity of organizing themselves into committees to give structure to the whole movement. The Action Committees unite all the students of the movement, members of organizations, nonmembers, and they exist in all the various schools of the university.
The Action Committees began at the university, but the second stage opened when hundreds of workers began coming to the Sorbonne...That is, the students served as an example. They played a leadership role when the working class entered the struggle. The workers, very often, came to the Sorbonne asking for advice, asking the students to help them organize themselves.
Thus the students saw the need to create Workers and Students Action Committees. Very quickly the Action Committees extended to all of Paris, to all of the districts. The Action Committees, which were at first led by the students, quickly embraced all sectors of the population, workers and housewives, everyone. In certain districts, Action Committees of 150 to 200 persons, only 10 of whom were students were formed.
There are now about 300 Action Committees in Paris, which group together workers, students, professors; everybody and anybody is in these Action Committees. The Action Committees serve as a kind of infrastructure for the movement.
When the revolutionary movement was at its peak, certain Action Committees developed a much higher level of organization – that is to say, certain Action Committees, particularly in the provinces, became genuine embryos of dual power ... In certain very local places, for example in Nantes, the Action Committees purchased food by presenting only IOU’s. Merchants distributed goods, without receiving any money, and in return they received IOU’s ...
M.W.: In the factories, have there been similar Action Committees or strike committees which have played a vanguard role?
A.K.: In the factories the political vanguard does not have the leadership. The movement in the factories was also started in a spontaneous way by the youth. ... The CP is opposed to the creation of strike committees. The CP has ordered three-fourths of the workers back home. The strike pickets are mainly composed of CGT and CP members. There is no genuine political life in the factories – they are almost empty today ...
The vanguard workers are even blocked by strike pickets from entering their factories. That is why the most advanced elements participate in the Action Committees of their neighborhoods set up by the students. The genuine political life has shifted from the factory to the neighborhood ...
M.W.: What has been the role of the JCR itself in all the events of the past months?
A.K.: In reality, we are the only organization that “survived.” The student masses, during the whole crisis, underwent a profound self-criticism. Amongst the student milieu there was no a priori prejudice towards the vanguard groups, only a prejudice towards the CP and the Social Democracy. The student masses subjected each group to an intense scrutiny. During all the general assemblies, as soon as someone took the floor and said something they didn’t like, they whistled and stopped the speaker from continuing.
The Lambertists (a sectarian group which broke from the Fourth International) and the Maoists, because of their sectarian positions, have actually discredited themselves among the students. The dynamics of the movement obviously taught them nothing. They were undercut just like that. The JCR was the only organization to be not only tolerated but to enjoy very real and important support. It has a considerable audience at the present moment, especially among the students and high-school kids. But it has also made very important inroads among the workers. Many workers are joining us now; we enjoy significant sympathy in certain sectors of the working class. For us this fact is one of the most positive results of the struggle ...
The authority of the JCR today stems from the maimer in which it integrated itself into the movement. At its inception the movement had almost an anarchic character, rejecting all leadership, all organizational apparatus. At first, although the JCR had some sympathy, it was nevertheless looked upon with suspicion – we were too organized, too centralized, we had too much of a structure and discipline. This aspect of our organization shocked many people.
We understood the movement from its inception. We knew that it would not remain at its embryonic stage. Little by little, through their own experiences, the students understood the necessity of a political leadership, of an organization ...
This makes all the difference between us and Daniel Cohn-Bendit. Cohn-Bendit was in actuality the leader at the beginning. He and his anarchistic ideas corresponded to the realities of the movement as it was then. But now the events have bypassed Cohn-Bendit, unless he changes. His political conceptions regarding the spontaneity of the movement, and regarding certain Marcusian tenets, remained the same, whereas the movement entered a new stage ...
We have made mistakes, but we have understood the dynamics of this mass movement. That is decisive.
Alain Krivine Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 16 March 2022