ZNet Articles
ZMag Articles
ZCommentaries
ZAudios
ZVideos
Blog Posts
Books
'68 and Now
By Michael Albert at Mar 29, 2008 |
|
Tariq Ali just posted an essay, we have put on ZNet, briefly recounting May 68 in France and the period surrounding it.
Tariq's query, hanging over the whole moving piece, is what happened to us? Where are we? And, more, where are the generations since we acted? Where's the passion? Where's the inspiration? Where's the outrage, the commitment? Where's the victory- dammit?
These are good questions.
Of course, part of the answer is that there have been many who stayed with the cause, and many others who newly joined, and there have been, as a result, many major victories. But still, I think Tariq is correct, I think, that there hasn't been remotely the accomplishment that '68 augured, the delight that '68 promised. The answers to why we have fallen short, in the past four decades, of what we foresaw while battling in the era of '68, are obviously complex and multifold. But I should like to propose, very succinctly, a couple of factors what seem to me to be very critical ones - and to be, crucially, ones that have very substantial implications for how we ought to try to now move forward.
Like Tariq I was there, back then, embedded in the events. And like him, I have persisted. Some might think we are, perhaps, a bit psychotic... or at least deviant, in that respect.
So why did so many not persist?
And why haven't those who have come later attained a comparable and indeed much larger scale of coherent and connected opposition, and not only of opposition, but of positive assertion that is new, original, creative - and victorious?
Most people who seek to answer such questions look at the social relations of the societies we live in - their media and educational systems, their coercive apparatuses, and so on - finding in those abysmal structures obstacles to participation, passion, and insight. And indeed, of course these are relevant factors and they do play a role. But they are what they are...and they do what they do...as we have recounted ad infinitum...and will do, until we change them.
In contrast, causes of the members and children of '68 not meeting our promise that seem to me far more central to our choices now will be factors over which we had a say, and over which we still have a say, even when we are small and weak. They will be the features of our history which could have been different had we only chosen to to make them different. The reasons for our limited success that matter most now, in other words, are the ones that we can relatively easily correct. They are the factors that caused dissipation which could be corrected and indeed replaced by causes of creation and steadily enlarging activism, merely by a choice that we can make.
Okay, so my two causes - the two factors I want to highlight - the two factors that we can influence any time, by simply deciding to do so - are these.
People left "the left" because it left them. Likewise, people who later joined, accomplished less than they might have, again because the left let them down, and also because they lacked a fire which in '68 was fueled by outrage at revealed hypocrisy, by later - when that became old hat, could only have been fueled by hope, by vision, by that which was absent - and likewise many didn't even bother joining, for that same reason, the lack of belief, hope, direction.
Having been aroused to anger - often to incredible degrees of anger - by discovering, and it was a revelation - the hypocrisy of our world, my generation of ;'68 was then mishandled by our own movement. In essence we mishandled, indeed, I suppose you might say we manhandled, ourselves. Instead of nurturing members' passion and enriching it, instead of serving members' needs and fulfilling them, instead of empowering members and making them more confident, more capable, and, yes, happier (all of which happened to some extent, and for some people, and most of those who stayed, by no accident) - our movements, not out of malevolence but out of poor choices of structure and practice, all too often turned our passion to bitterness, narrowed our scope of solidarity and compassion, denied and ridiculed our needs, disempowered most members in their own lives and certainly in social engagement, and made us, yes, miserable, leading to burnout and permanent vacations from the cause. The first problem to be overcome, therefore, if the next forty years are to be more productive than the past forty, is that our movements need to retain members, enrich the lives of members, and make members more committed, more militant, more capable, rather than the opposite - eating our own alive. We must realize that dealing with that problem, with what I like to call the stickiness problem - which is to say making our movement sticky rather than repulsive for its own members - is far far more important than what we spend most of our time doing instead, which is honing and endlessly repeating our critiques of what is bad to the tenth decimal place, and then broadcasting them to the point of finally cementing hopelessness into people's hearts, rather than desire.
And then, second, there is the vision problem. Thinking about '68 was one of the ways I came to what are, I agree, my own nearly obsessive views on these matters. I asked myself - okay, self - in '68 France went from somewhat active and disruptive to virtually tumultuous and nearly revolutionary, in a span of just a month or so. Everywhere there was questioning. More, everywhere there was a spirit not just of resistance but of desire. There was active, militant, creative pursuit of new aims, new goals. What the hell happened?
Well, oversimplifying to make a point, I said to myself, perhaps what happened, in accord with how we spend so much of our time, is that millions of people who did not understand capitalism, patriarchy, etc. etc., suddenly understood it, and thus, based on this knowledge, became revolutionary. But then I thought, well, if I am honest about it, that seems awfully unlikely, but, okay, let's say it was the case, consistent with our emphasis, almost exclusively, on constantly analyzing what is wrong. Well then, why did it die, only so little later? Did people's minds not only very suddenly become far better informed, but then, also, weeks later, revert to ignorance. That's ridiculous, I thought to myself. No mind fills and empties like that. And so I said, self, what else could it be? And I felt it had to be something like this - people went, rather quickly, from no hope to hope - that's what fueled the tumult - and then later, the hope left. So the real foundation wasn't analysis of capitalism or patriarchy per se spreading among folks - important as such analyses can be. The real foundation was people escaping the depression of believing their is no alternative, people escaping from cynicism and into the elation and turmoil and rage and passion of believing there is a better future and that they can help make it happen. And why did it dissipate? Well, without going on and on, mostly because it wasn't very deep - it was about charisma and boiling stews of emotion and didn't have sufficient underling comprehension, reason, evidence, information.
If this is true, at least now, four decades after '68, it seems to me the obstacle to overcome to increase both recruitment and certainly longevity and intensity of movement involvement, is cynicism. The task to doing that, at least to doing it in a way that won;t unravel, is to provide vision of a better future that is compelling, inspiring, and able to inform today's activism, and that can sustain people having and holding an informed belief that it is worth their valuable and in short supply time to participate.
My answer to Tariq Ali's query, and I think it is a very optimistic answer because it is within our power to correct it, is that the movements of '68 and since didn't win as much as their promise evoked because they were horribly flawed - we were horribly flawed. It is not that we were repressed, or tricked, but that we erred, we made poor choices. And I think people today can do better, much much better, anytime people get around to it. We need only build movements that really do embody the seeds of the future in the present, that really do nurture and train and fulfill their members, sustaining involvement, expanding commitment, movements that really do inspire unyielding but informed involvemen by virtue of their vision and the coherence of their methods, as well.
By Frchristie, Frederic at Apr 23, 2008 19:27 PM
I agree, an unnecessarily melancholy post by David (who I normally concur with on many issues). Albert isn\'t necessarily talking about optimism or even hope per se, depending on how one interprets the phrases. Rather, he\'s talking about discussing positive routes to change rather than simply harping on the negative, and arguing that focusing on the status quo only deepens cynicism. We\'ve conquered the enlightenment problem, by and large; while there\'s certainly issues still to discuss, the only way we\'ll even get to the point where people think that it\'s even relevant to add on is if they can do something about it. So it\'s important for movements to stress what can be done. Does David literally believe there is no opportunity for activism to accomplish major changes, indeed revolutionary ones? It would be a strange position for him to take.
Reply this comment
Re: '68 and Now
By Corbett, Jean-Francois at Apr 03, 2008 09:12 AM
David Peterson wrote:
> I see little reason to believe that the next forty years will turn out any better than the past forty. [...] Despair, yes. Hope, no.
Jeez, could you be any more gratuitously depressing and simplistic? You sound like my grandmother, dude, honestly.
The only difference is, she has suffered a massive stroke and has been bedridden for 5 years -- i.e. she actually has a good explanation for being depressing and simplistic.
The matters discussed in Michael Albert\'s blog post are matters for action, not ranting speculation like David Peterson\'s. The whole point is: Identify the errors of the past, correct them; identify the successes of the past, build on them.
I really can\'t stand self-pitying "intellectualising". I find it gets in the way of my desire to continue my organising work. Perhaps people should find another forum if they want to express their "darkest inner thoughts of despair", or whatever.
Jean-François Corbett
Copenhagen, Denmark
Reply this comment
\"\'68 and Now\"
By Peterson, David at Apr 02, 2008 22:16 PM
Friends:
Michael Albert promises a "couple of factors" that, he believes, account for the distance that separates the spirit that animated 1968 from the perdition of 2008. Although I\'m sure the two factors are there, somewhere -- I couldn\'t tell what Michael thinks they are.
The "dominant mood among the more radical of the 60s generation," Tariq Ali writes, was this: "If the Vietnamese were defeating the world\'s most powerful state, surely we, too, could defeat our own rulers."
But we don\'t have to defeat our own rulers in an armed conflict: We need only stop feeding them and vote them out of office. Instead, we keep voting them into office. Come what may.
"Democratic contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton [each] have raised at least $100 million more than the Republican nominee, John McCain," the Wall Street Journal reports. "Of seven major industries that have been the most reliable Republican resources, [agriculture, construction, the military-industrial complex, energy, finance, health care, and transportation,] Sen. McCain has beaten Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama in only one….Even that one, transportation, is a close call."
Through February 2008, as the Journal details, the three candidates\' fundraising was $193 million, $169 million, and $66 million. -- Basing your judgment strictly on these numbers, how might you identify who\'s the Republican presidential candidate, and who the Democrats?
One important difference between 1968 and 2008 is how much more expertise the managers of the "system" have developed for channeling dissent away from power here onto power elsewhere -- or simply into empty gestures and dead-ends. The photo that accompanies Tariq Ali\'s essay bears the caption: "Students hurling projectiles against the police on the Boulevard Saint Germain, Paris, May 6 1968." These students weren\'t protestingBeijing \'s conduct in western China , Khartoum \'s in the western Sudan , Tehran \'s in Iran , or Rangoon \'s in Burma United States
Nor did any of these "socially conscious"U.S. athletes struggle over how to reconcile their beliefs against killing with cases when their own state happens to be the perpetrator, rather than far-off Sudan or China
Instinctive human passion exists today as much as it has at any other time in history. Still. I see little reason to believe that the next forty years will turn out any better than the past forty. And even less reason to adopt optimism as a kind of praxis.
Despair, yes. Hope, no.
"\'68 and Now," Michael Albert, ZCom, March 29, 2008
"Where Has All the Rage Gone?" Tariq Ali, The Guardian, March 22, 2008
"Business Donors Bypass McCain," Brody Mullins, Wall Street Journal, April 2, 2008. (Be sure to check out the chart that depicts Clinton - Obama - McCain Fundraising through February 2008.)
"Olympic athletes struggle with protest on Darfur," Katie Thomas, International Herald Tribune, April 1, 2008
David PetersonUSA
Chicago,
Reply this comment
Re: '68 and Now
By Frchristie, Frederic at Apr 02, 2008 12:41 PM
Mike: As always, I agree with all of the above, and it matches my perceptions and interactions with people.
Reply this comment
Re: '68 and Now
By Hall, Lucas at Mar 30, 2008 01:41 AM
Hi Michael,
My name\'s Lucas, I\'m from Australia and I\'ve just joined Zcommuni(ty)cations. I\'ve been a reader of Zmag for a couple of years, always having to pick it up at the local Borders, which I always found delightfully ironic, this paragon of the corporate state being the only place I could find that stocked a journal dedicated to it\'s dismemberment.
This is the first blog here I have read, and it uncannily is dealing with perhaps the main concern of mine in regards to the progressive movements in Australia. I am not a veteran activist from the \'60s, I am 23, but I have been a member of enough organisations to have come to the conclusion that the revolutionary left wing groups here were close minded, ideologically driven, often anti-democratic -however much they may espouse the opposite-, and embroiled in their own petty power struggles.
This was very disheartening to me, and I spent some time pursuing a very individualistic activism, culture jamming, etc., as I felt that perhaps I was alone in these sentiments. Yet, it was during this time that I made friends and contacts with people who had very progressive, extremely diverse ideas, who felt much the same way as I - that the established groups contained a homogeneity of thought, debate that consisted of merely rehashing accepted ideas, and, if I may speak bluntly, people who appeared far more concerned with appearing as if they had all the answers than with keeping an open mind and constantly searching for new ideas and new possibilities.
A small group of friends and I have decided to start our own org, one built on the ideas of radical, participatory democracy, where all progressive ideas are welcome, where informed views are openly debated and dissent demanded of those who disagree with the groups decision\'s. More than that though, we mean to establish a new model of left-wing political activist org\'s, one that not only appeals to individuals desires to build a better world for tomorrow, but one that also aspires to create a better life for members today, a life where support, community, and, indeed, love are embodied in everything we do.
The forces of reaction and violence are today so strong, I believe stronger than they have ever been before. They are proud of who they are and declare loudly there commitment to the Right. We need to build a Left where the pride and joy that comes from "fighting the good fight" is not consumed and destroyed, but one where it is shared, rejoiced, and reinvigorated.
Yours sincerely, Lucas Hall
Reply this comment
Circumstances
By Hegarty, Terence at Mar 29, 2008 12:06 PM
You\'re certainly right, but it\'s important to remember (with some justification) that, beginning with the phony "energy crisis" of 1973, cost of living skyrocketed, breaking up urban neighborhoods that were our communal strongholds. I lived in the Dupont Circle/Columbia Road section of Washington DC; by 1975, no one I knew could afford to live within miles of there, and we were scattered all over suburban Maryland; communication was severely hampered, and slowly but surely most of us succumbed to enervation. Talking to others later, I found out this happened everywhere--it was a planned counter-revolution (with delightful unexpected windfall profits for landlords, gift of the ruling class). We were deliberately driven out of our strongholds in cities everywhere by a concerted rent-raising campaign, classically divided and conquered. And I\'m sure this is but one of the many ways in which "the movement" was destroyed. (Nancy Reagan\'s "Just Say No" to drugs was another.) Historically, of course, it\'s exhilarating to know that we really did present such an urgent threat; but\'s it\'s depressing to see how well the reactionary tactics worked. With hindsight one can see that this was merely part of a huge reactionary campaign. I think it\'s important not to blame our own shortcomings too much, and to acknowledge the power we wielded--enough to genuinely frighten power and drive the apparatus of repression to spend vast amounts of money, might, police, subversion and propaganda to break us up. I think there\'s a lesson not only in our defeat, but in our near-victory. Our own mistakes were by themselves not enough to harm us. It\'s important to remember this latter truth as we go forward to the next (and much worse) wave of repression.
Reply this comment