Showing posts with label paris. Show all posts
Showing posts with label paris. Show all posts

Sunday, November 29, 2020

May '68: The Pivot of Leftist Politics in France


 

     1968 was turbulent all around the world. For France, it was no different. The conservative president Charles de Gaulle was still in power. The controversial Algerian War had unsettled the populace. France was abandoning its position as colonialist overload of Vietnam as America escalated its own war against communism in that nation. The police had been militarized in anticipation of social upheavals. The young generation of postwar students were getting anxious and the labor unions were looking for new reasons to agitate the national workforce. The fires of political protest were sweeping throughout America, England, Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Japan and it was time for France to get caught up in all of that too.

     It all started small. A group of students at the Paris University of Nanterre wanted to spend more time with their girlfriends. The female dorms had strict time limitations and curfews for male visitors. The Sexual Revolution was building momentum and there were a lot of boy and girl students who wanted greater access to each other. They held a couple small demonstrations in the Spring of 1968 and, unpredictably, they began to attract a larger and larger number of students.

     Earlier that year, France’s Communist and Socialist Parties had agreed to form a coalition to replace Charles de Gaulle as prime minister of France. Activists at Nanterre saw the small demonstrations as a potential flashpoint to start an uprising and began getting more and more disgruntled students involved. So on March 22, 150 student agitators occupied a university administration building and drew up a list of demands. The police surrounded Nanterre and allowed the occupiers to publicly state their grievances. Then they were allowed to leave without being attacked, although the ring leaders were later brought in for disciplinary actions. They were later celebrated as heroes and that day was commemorated by christening it the Movement of 22 March.

     Demonstrations at Nanterre continued throughout April, disrupting ordinary affairs until May 2 when the university officials closed the university and threatened to expel the students who were responsible. Across town, at the Sorbonne campus of the University of Paris, students went on strike to protest the closure of Naterre. The police were called in to maintain order; they surrounded the Sorbonne campus and sealed it off to prevent anyone from coming or going. On May 3, students from Nanterre and other universities in Paris marched on the Sorbonne. They were joined by high school students and educators who were organized by the teacher’s union. 20,000 people arrived and began to attack the police. Barriers were built with any materials or debris they could find in the immediate area and the mob began throwing rocks and bricks. The police decided to retreat but soon returned wearing riot gear. The crowds were blasted with tear gas, being trampled and beaten with batons as the cops chased them away.

     Later in the week, students began returning to their campuses but when they arrived they found a police occupation. On Friday May 10, crowds began to gather at the Rive Gauche. The police attacked them so they set up barricades and the riots started again. Cars were burned and molotov cocktails were thrown. The disturbances lasted through the night and ended at dawn. The next day, images of the fighting were broadcast on television and the general public were horrified by the police brutality.

     The next day, over a million protesters marched through Paris. The Prime Minister Georges Pompidou went into hiding and called for the police to leave Sorbonne and released all the rioters who had been arrested. The students returned to the university but they became more violent, throwing rocks and bricks at the authorities. More barricades were set up and students occupied the campus, declaring it to be an autonomous people’s zone.

     All throughout the city, graffiti was written by anonymous protesters. Slogans like “It is forbidden to forbid” and “Be realistic, demand the impossible” could be read on walls and sidewalks. Some of these ideas became conventional wisdom for the upcoming generation of new radicals. Pamphlets, booklets, and chapbooks were also circulated, free of charge, throughout the crowds. They outlined revolutionary schemes and ideologies written by communists, socialists, anarchists, and artists. One pamphlet going around was published without copyright by the Situationist International, an offspring of the Surrealist art movement that morphed into an anarchist urban guerilla outfit. The manifesto, written by a young filmmaker named Guy Debord, was titled Society Of the Spectacle. It would go on to obtain cult status in postmodernist and activists intellectual circles.

     Meanwhile, throughout all the neighborhoods of Paris, people began organizing popular action committees. They held meetings to discuss their grievances against the government and laid out plans to petition for change. Over 400 committees were formed. The mainstream of society had joined in with the revolt.

     The tides began to turn on Saturday night when the leaders of the student demonstrations were interviewed on television. People watching at home were disappointed by their lack of direction, destructive ambitions, and utopian ideologies. The student leaders wanted to tear down the capitalist system and end the consumerist society but they had no real plans for what to do after that happened. Popular support for the movement began to gradually wane. But the protest movement was far from over.

     Not only young people in other parts of France begin to protest; blue collar workers all over the country, but mostly in Paris, declared a general strike. Influenced by student Communist Party activists, the Proletariat laborers, most especially the factory and farm workers, demanded ownership of their workplaces and the resignation of President de Gaulle. To calm the tensions, the labor unions made a deal with the business owners to increase wages by a heft 35%, shorten working hours, and provide more vacation time. The striking workers refused to accept this bargain. Their demands were more radical and more political. Some student demonstrators took note of the general strike and began showing up at the factories to sit with the idle laborers and support their picket lines. Some activists entered the factories and spent time talking to the workers, getting to know them and forming alliances.

     Towards the end of the month, while still on strike, the working classes, students, and Communist Party officials held a rally in a football stadium. As the day wore on, speaker after speaker came to the microphone and made speeches about overthrowing the government and radically altering the foundations of French society. But the proletariat and the student would-be revolutionaries had different agendas and by the end of the rally it was obvious they could lend each other little more than verbal support.

     On May 24 and 26, the only two deaths of May ‘68 were reported. In Lyon, rioters set a driverless truck into motion. It crashed into a line of police and killed one of them. Two days later in Paris, a 26 year old activist got into a fight with another demonstrator who stabbed him to death. In later years when police were confronted with their brutal and militaristic tactics of crowd control during those times, they responded by saying that they were proud of their actions because they themselves never killed anyone.

     While the rally was happening, the Socialist Party’s leader, Francois Mitterand, held meetings with government officials to discuss forming a new government. Surprisingly, the politicians wanted to include the Communist Party in their committees. The demonstrators were largely supporters of communist ideology and their numbers were large enough that it was thought they should be allowed to discuss their demands. The Socialist Party had more support from the general populace but they agreed to allow the Communists to attend planning sessions.

     The conferences were scheduled for May 29 but got canceled because on the morning of that same day, Charles de Gaulle, fearing the start of a revolution, fled the country. He handed power over to Prime Minster Georges Pompidou who, for a short time, ran the government by himself. The government collapsed when members of the National Assembly began to flee. Documents were destroyed, money was stolen, and a lot of politicians tried to cross the borders to escape to other countries. Somebody gave Georges Pompidou a gun and told him to keep it close in case he needed it. No one knew where de Gaulle had gone.

     Later that night, Pompidou learned that de Gaulle was over the border in Germany, plotting his return with a member of the military, General Jacques Massu. At that point, de Gaulle had grave doubts about his ability to continue leading France. He felt that he had lost the support of his people. Part of their plot for his return included plans for getting his family out of France if he were assassinated or unable to restore order in his country.

     On May 30, the Communist Party called for a march. A crowd of 500,000 gathered at the President’s palace on Champs Elysee. Pompidou was expecting a violent revolution to begin so he called out the riot squads and snipers, ordering them to shoot to kill if anything got out of hand. He also ordered tanks onto the streets of the countryside, surrounding Paris in case the demonstrators tried to escape. He mistakenly believed the they would start fighting then leave the city, regroup on the outskirts, and return to make tactical strikes using guerilla warfare techniques. But the Communists were not into violence. Their objective was to call for conferences and negotiations. They wanted their entry into politics to be done legally and peacefully. Some scholars have argued that if the military and police had clamped down with violence, then public opinion would have turned to greater support for the revolutionaries. All sides played their hands wisely that day.

     On May 30, Charles de Gaulle, back in France, appeared on television and announced that he would not resign. He also explained that the military had surrounded Paris in case a revolution began. But on the brighter side, he called for elections to be held at the end of June and Communist Party members would be on the ballot. After the broadcast, one million supporters of the government marched on the Champs Elysees, waving French flags. The call for revolution was over. The workers returned to work. The college year ended and the students returned home for the summer.

     The election in June resulted in a loss for Charles de Gaulle. The Communist Party gained a small number of seats in the National Assembly and the Socialist Party lost most of theirs. Some small, spontaneous demonstrations happened after that but the uprising of May was over.

     Blue collar workers and left wing activists were unable to hold their fragile alliance together and went their separate ways. An experimental commune was set up outside Paris, though. A handful of anarchist squatters, leftist journalists from a newspaper published by Jean-Paul Sartre, and farmers with radical views attempted to form a co-op but the project lasted a very short time. The more educated activists looked on in dismay as the farmers took to fighting and bickering with each other; in the end, they refused to cooperate and the commune dissolved.

     In the long run, May ‘68 was increasingly seen as a turning point for the French left wing. It inaugurated the New Left movement in France. But this movement was less involved in demonstrations, strikes, and riots. Instead, a class of French intelligentsia formed and turned to philosophy and intellectualism instead. For better or worse, the arcane, and often confusing, disciplines of postmodernism, poststructuralism, deconstruction, and critical theory became a mainstay in Western university humanities departments. Many believe these theoretical styles have done more harm than good when furthering the cause of left wing politics.

     So what was May ‘68 really all about? There is no general consens. Both left wing and right wing public intellectuals have tried to dominate this narrative to support their own agendas. Many people supported the uprising for many different reasons, bringing their own complaints and ideas into the mix. It came and went like a spontaneous explosion of existential frustrations. In the end, there were no effective leaders with clearly stated goals to seize power and direct the demonstrations towards a higher cause. It all fizzled out quickly, leaving not much but an election and a lot of nostalgia. Strikes and demonstrations are now common in France and the capitalist establishment continues on with relative stability, able to withstand the shocks and upheavals that arise every so often.


Judt, Tony. Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945. Penguin Books, New York: 2006.

Ross, Kristin. May ‘68 and Its Afterlives. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London: 2008.

photo credits:

The Irish Times

The Paris Review

Red Flag




Sunday, March 15, 2020

Book Review


Book Review

Paris In the Terror: June 1793 - July 1794

by Stanley Loomis

     Reading about the French Revolution can be a bewildering task. A lot of books examine the abstract ideologies at the expense of the people who participated in it. Those ideologies can seem like a haze of minute details and inconsistent theories. A lot of those books also prostitute the subject matter, be it Marxists, conservatives, anarchists, American libertarians or Thomas Carlyle; the revolution gets used as a means of pushing a political agenda adding extra elements of confusion into an already murky historical subject. This is where Stanley Loomis’ Paris In the Terror:June 1793 – July 1794 comes in since it focuses on the people more than the ideas of the French Revolution.
     Loomis’ approach is to describe the human side of those times. The major figures are portrayed as detailed individuals and their psychological motivations are brought out into the open for the world to see. This book is written almost like a novel with vivid descriptions and plot elements so that the reader feels like they are present as the events unfold. This makes the history easier to relate to and more comprehensible. Another thing that Loomis gets right is that he does not try to tell the story of the whole revolt in one book. By narrowing the scope of the narrative, the events and their significance are easier to grasp. It probably does not matter that it solely examines the Reign of Terror that happened at the climax of the French Revolution. A basic knowledge of what came before and after that notorious time is enough to make this book comprehensible. The well-defined characters and sharp focus on one segment gives Paris In the Terror more structure, clarity, and gravity than other accounts therefore justifying it as a significant text for serious readers.
     It is possible to say the character driven narrative makes Loomis’ writing almost cinematic. You may wonder why so much of the first section is dedicated to the life of Charlotte Corday who many authors might consider to be of little value since she is only remembered for the assassination of Jean-Paul Marat. But learning about her motivations clarifies a lot of the conflicts inherent in the story. She exemplifies the contrast between Paris and the outlying provinces, the division between the Girondins and Montagnards in the Assembly, and the ambiguous intellectualism and attitudes to the revolution that were current among the French populace.
     A larger section of Paris In the Terror describes the life of Danton. Loomis portrays him as the moderate leader of the Cordelier Club that tried to unite the naively idealistic Girondins with the action-oriented thugs and ruffians of the Montagnards. All the while he was embezzling money from the national treasury to purchase property despite his loyalty and patriotism to the country of France that he deeply loved. The complexities and contradictions of his motives get thoroughly examined; Loomis makes him one of the central figures of the story and his mixture of admiration and disappointment is easy to see.
     The other major player is Robespierre. The cutthroat lawyer who loved the guillotine more than the French people gets cast as a horrifying villain. His character is cowardly and humorless, unable to love and asexual. His lofty moral standards were impossible for anyone to live up to except for himself. His intention was to purge France of anyone who was not revolutionary enough so he cut through a lot of red tape by eliminating due process of law and sending thousands of people to the Place de la Revolution to be butchered by the executioner Samson. Eventually his followers began to realize that the longer they lived, the closer they got to the guillotine. It is difficult to sympathize with the character of Robespierre but it also becomes more apparent as the book goes on that the French Revolution was mostly a populist uprising; the members of the Jacobins who made up most of the Assembly were politically naive and inexperienced in running a government. One lesson that might be learned is that having merchants, farmers, and thugs seize control over government can easily lead to a bloodbath, especially when they feel their goals are not being reached quickly or efficiently enough.
     Paris In the Terror is not without it faults. Jean-Paul Marat gets portrayed as a ranting, resentful instigator of violence; this portrayal may be true but there are many people who consider him a hero and Loomis’ does not draw him as a three-dimensional character which he does for others like Charlotte Corday who has her share of detractors as well. Overall, the accuracy of Loomis’ depictions can be called into question but then again, so what? It is clear who the author loves and who he hates but any writer or historian will bring their own personal prejudices into their writing. Besides, so far no other author can claim a monopoly on truth when it comes to portraying the French Revolution. It was a time when too much happened, there were too many people involved, and they all brought their own ideas, legitimate or not, into the events of the day. It would be natural for even eye-witnesses of the revolution to give contradictory accounts of what happened.
     Paris In the Terror is a fascinating book. Its vivid descriptions put the reader right at the sidelines of the action while exemplifying how human nature and psychology caused the French Revolution to take all the disastrous turns that it did. The ideologies of the participants take a back seat to the people who believed in them. It also does not revel in the gore and inhumane slaughter that characterized the Reign of Terror. History is made by people and the people, with all their imperfections, who made the French Revolution are at the center of this storm. You do not have to agree with Loomis’ interpretations to get a lot out of this book; you just have to observe and decide for yourself what to think.

Loomis, Stanley. Paris In the Terror: June 1793 - July 1794. J.B. Lippincott and Company, Philadelphia and New York: 1964.






Wednesday, November 20, 2019

Shakespeare and Co: The World's Most Famous Bookshop at 100


“My loves were Adrienne Monnier and James Joyce and Shakespeare and Company,” wrote Sylvia Beach, whose legendary Parisian bookstore first opened its doors 100 years ago this month. Together with Monnier, her lifelong personal and professional partner whose own store, La Maison des Amis des Livres, was a meeting place for the leading men of French letters, Beach would befriend and nurture two generations of American, Anglo-Irish and French writers including André Gide, Paul Valéry, TS Eliot, Ezra Pound, Ernest Hemingway and, of course, James Joyce.