What were the Paris protests of 1968 all about?
>Scruton first embraced conservatism during the student protests of May 1968 in France. Nicholas Wroe wrote in The Guardian that Scruton was in the Latin Quarter in Paris at the time, watching students overturning cars to erect barricades, and tearing up cobblestones to throw at the police. "I suddenly realized I was on the other side. What I saw was an unruly mob of self-indulgent middle-class hooligans. When I asked my friends what they wanted, what were they trying to achieve, all I got back was this ludicrous Marxist gobbledegook. I was disgusted by it, and thought there must be a way back to the defence of western civilization against these things. That's when I became a conservative. I knew I wanted to conserve things rather than pull them down."[4]
>>787254
>What were the Paris protests of 1968 all about?
FULL COMMUNISM, NOW.
In particular the discovery by French students of the wage relationship in the production of higher skilled labour power.
>>787254
UN demanded French people actually bathe and they werent having any of it
>>787254
Decadent moderns thrashing about blindly as they slide into the abyss, consumed by the alien gods they themselves unwittingly (yet willingly) conjured.
>>787254
https://youtu.be/6_5gio3yd3A
http://pastebin.com/jGrwFuJM
Retards being retards. Pretty much everything they were for was wrong and all their ideas harmed society.
>>789345
Why don't you provide a better narrative, my Communist foe?
I've read more historiography that's highly critical of the 1968 protestors than I have any kind of document glorifying them--and I'm including people from the Left in this. The 1968 protests were exactly what the first post after the OP says they were: middle-class Marxists trying to wage a class war against what they didn't even realize was themselves.
>>789503
> middle-class Marxists
>Workers began occupying factories, starting with a sit-down strike at the Sud Aviation plant near the city of Nantes on 14 May, then another strike at a Renault parts plant near Rouen, which spread to the Renault manufacturing complexes at Flins in the Seine Valley and the Paris suburb of Boulogne-Billancourt. Workers had occupied roughly fifty factories by 16 May, and 200,000 were on strike by 17 May. That figure snowballed to two million workers on strike the following day and then ten million, or roughly two-thirds of the French workforce, on strike the following week.
>>789552
Yes, whether or not you realize it, you've backed up my point. I highly doubt those workers organized themselves spontaneously without some agitation from student groups or the far left.
>>789565
You don't get ten million people to ignore their union and instead listen to a few far-left students if they don't already agree with at least some of their ideas beforehand
>>789655
What does that have to do with my point? The protests were organized and instigated by students and radical leftists. Workers typically want higher wages. The fact that they ignored their unions to join the radicals doesn't negate the agitation by the radicals.
>>789709
>What does that have to do with my point?
Your point was that '68 was just a group of "middle-class Marxists trying to wage a class war" when it was much more than that.
The fact that it started with protests against the Sorbonne doesn't mean that workers occupying their factories where being organised by students
>>789772
>when it was much more than that.
Again, you'll have to show me how. I want sources that show the workers spontaneously organized, if you want me to believe you.
>organized
"Agitating" and "organizing" are two different things. I'm inclined to think that the workers organized themselves only when an opportunity emerged and was brought to their attention by radicals or the activities of radicals.
>>789840
>I want sources that show the workers spontaneously organized
You want documentary proof of a negative of a strawman you invented? What part of a high level of discourse is expected do you not understand? >>>/int/
>I'm inclined to think
No, you're not. The most common criticism by the ultraleft regarding 1968 is that the PCF locked down the factories, this is a widely respected summary account. The inability of students to access the factory proletariat is widely documented, even in Cohn-Bendit who ought rightly given his blue-collar worshipping workerism should document such connections and was in a place to do so.
The factory occupations were a revolt against the PCF line by those workers themselves.
>>789884
>You want documentary proof of a negative of a strawman you invented?
I want documentary proof of YOUR claim that the workers were not influenced by the radicals when they went on strike. You seem to be implying they weren't here.
>The inability of students to access the factory proletariat is widely documented
But that doesn't have much to do with my point, again.
>the workers organized themselves only when an opportunity emerged and was brought to their attention by radicals or the activities of radicals.
Unless you're claiming that the workers went on strike with no knowledge of the volatile political situation of the moment, I don't understand what you're trying to say. If you are trying to say that, I don't understand why you would think it's true.
Let me reiterate the point I made in my last post, because I think you missed a disjunction that I threw in there.
>I'm inclined to think that the workers organized themselves only when an opportunity emerged and was brought to their attention by radicals or the activities of radicals.
>OR the activities of the radicals
"The activities of the radicals" were by no means limited to agitating the workers and I haven't claimed that agitation was a primary goal of the radicals. The claim is that the workers took note of what the more radical elements of the moment were doing and took advantage of the chaos to press their own agenda.
>Middle-class Marxists tyring to wage a class war against themselves without realizing it
It really does seem like what you're posting is backing up my claim: the fact that the students couldn't reach the proletariat and characterized things in those terms seems to indicate that they were non-proletarian Marxists trying to wage a class war and attacking their own class in the process.
>>789916
>implying
No, I stated, and then cited a major primary source combined with a source argument.
>doesn't have much to do with my point
And you're either illiterate or have a problem following basic reasoning. I tend to the latter.
>>the workers organized themselves only when an opportunity emerged and was brought to their attention by radicals or the activities of radicals.
Not found in quoted post.
>to press their own agenda.
Which agenda was this again, your claim that proletarian consciousness is limited to the class in itself? Then you should be able to show wage demands readily from strike committees.
>>Middle-class Marxists tyring to wage a class war against themselves without realizing it
Not found in quoted post. I think it is illiteracy now.
>>787845
can you expand on that wage more skilled thing I'd like to know more
>>789940
I don't even believe in proletarian consciousness. I think the notion is delusional. Middle-class intellectuals and working-class factory workers do not conceive of each other's plights in the same way.
>>790202
>>https://www.marxists.org/archive/rubin/value/ch15.htm
>A large number of Marxist analysts have taken this path. [12] They concentrated their main attention on the fact that the product of qualified labor is not only the result of the labor which is directly expended on its production, but also of that labor which is necessary for the training of the laborer in the given profession. The latter labor also enters into the value of the product and makes it correspondingly more expensive. "In what it has to give for the product of skilled labor, society consequently pays an equivalent for the value which the skilled labors would have created had they been directly consumed by society," [13] and not spent on training a qualified labor force. These labor processes are composed of the master craftsman's and the teacher's labor, which is expended for training a laborer of a given profession, and of the labor of the student himself during the training period.
>Thus, the labor expended in training the producers of a given profession enters into the value of the product of qualified labor. But in professions which differ in terms of higher qualifications and greater complexity of labor, the training of laborers is usually carried out by means of selection, from a larger number of the most capable students. From among three individuals studying engineering, perhaps only one graduates and achieves the goal. Thus, the expenditure of the labor of three students, and the corresponding increased expenditure of labor by the instructor, are required for the preparation of one engineer. Thus the transfer of students to a given profession,among whom only one third has a chance of reaching the goal, takes place to a sufficient extent only if the increased value of the products of the given profession can compensate the unavoidable (and to some extent wasted) expenditures of labor.
It was about killing Gaulist France, and it succeeded, now it's just as cucked as the rest of europe.
>>790245
Yes, and that has nothing to do with proletarian consciousness, which as I've said I don't even believe in. It's in a worker's self-interest to be paid more. It doesn't have to be some kind of revolutionary demand based on a Marxist theory of class consciousness. A strike doesn't have to be conceived of as a movement toward a socialist society.
>>790269
>nothing to do with proletarian consciousness
>a worker's self-interest
I think you've demonstrated your ignorance enough for the day, go home.
>>790280
I don't think that proletarian consciousness is an actual thing, though. I'm denying its existence and claiming that you're characterizing events in a misleading way. If you actually think that proletarian self-consciousness and economic self-interest are synonyms, you're the ignorant one.
>>790297
You're suggesting that a term doesn't exist. What you meant to actually say was that you deny that this concept adequately or accurately represents reality. Meanwhile, every time you characterise the working class you express its sentiments as necessarily being that of the class in itself. You don't actually know what the term you claim is inaccurate is used to express.
You've demonstrated your ignorance enough for the day, go home.
>>790311
Self-interest is not the same as proletarian class consciousness. Are you actually suggesting that, when I claim workers act in what they perceive as their own self-interest, I'm actually claiming that workers are organizing into revolutionary bodies for the purpose of seizing control of the means of production?
>>787254
>why is my dog so smug?
>>787254
I still don't get the protests. So you people are saying some students started protesting because they were not going to be sufficiently compensated to efficiently accomplish the goal of educating the next generation, and smug conservatives should be thanked for looking down on their brethren? I sense bias to the point of confusion.
Don't make me to do wikipedia.
>>790230
So, they were angry that in a capitalist society, the demand for jobs is greater than the supply of jobs? Or were they angry that half of them were studying their asses off for a 50/50 chance at the job they wanted and thus wasting their labor?
>>790230
>Thus, the expenditure of the labor of three students, and the corresponding increased expenditure of labor by the instructor, are required for the preparation of one engineer.
this is gibberish. in no way is the labour of the two students who fail required for the training of the one who succeeds
>>787254
Rich kids having nothing to do all day.
>>793468
They became aware that they were engaged in the production of surplus value: that the central elements of a wage relationship applied to them.
Their response was relatively primitive, but recognised by blue collar workers, but the primitive organisation of the students despite their critical point in the pathway of capitalism led to a lack of solidarity and leadership being rapidly passed into the factory strike committees.
>>793489
In the 1960s the demand for university trained white collar labour still exceeded the supply. They were angry about being enmeshed in a wage labour relationship at all. cf: "Under the paving stones, the beach."
>>793540
The paragraph, or paragraph preceding, specified the loss rate as necessary at the level of social development of pedagogy. BA programmes, for example, have a loss rate entirely related to mental illness as we are obliged to pass everybody. BEng or BSc(Eng) programmes are allowed to actually fail people.
>>787254
It was one of the first colored revolution, lead by Ashkenazi Jews (Cohn-Bendit, Krivine), to overthrow conservative-patriarcal right-wing leader (De Gaulle) and replace him with leftist, liberal, pro-American leaders, in order to advance the NWO.
>>787254
A movement ruined by the involvement of bourgeois academics.
They thought it was fun.
>>794213
Does anybody on this board know what they're talking about? The French Communist Party didn't support the students at first, including Althusser etc
>>794234
> students start a movement
> Foushit, Beaupoo, Sartrcrap, Deloser join
oh gee, I wonder why it failed
it's the 1968 equivalent of asking for higher wages and getting black lives matter and "down with micro-aggression" as a result
>you will never live in a world where de Gaulle went full Pinochet and slaughtered all the dirty leftists
>>794242
Are you twelve years old
Well why do protest and revolutions happen?
1968 happened fro very legitimate reasons.
France had just gone out of a very unpopular and pointless war in Algeria that De Gaulle started, then there was Vietnam that France also bared a responsibility for.
Then there was the fact that France was in the shitter economically, it had completely stagnated after that sweet Marshal money stopped, and wages for industrial workers were very low, since the first effects of mass industrial automation were beginning to be felt. This wasn't just a French phenomenon btw, in Italy, Germany and the US thousands of factories were closing due to automation not needing that many workers.
1968 failed not because there wasn't revolutionary potential, but because the Leftists did not want to cease power (Foucault realized this after 68 and completely distanced himself from the left), coupled with the fact that the Communist party and the rest of the Unions did not support the protesters the revolt was stopped in it's tracks.
The other effect of 68 was ushering the "orgy", as Baudrillard says. That is Capitalist forces capitalized on the demands of the youth protesting and made into marketable products. Everything from the sexual revolution to the "freedom to do what you want" was neatly repackaged into a fresh new package, proving once again that Capitalism does not need to mean the exploitation and the fooling of the masses as long as you repackage it a nice coca cola can.
Godards films from the 60's show this extreme paradox and the contradictions of French society very beautifully.
>>794242
>> Foushit, Beaupoo, Sartrcrap, Deloser join
Fuckall, Beauvore, Rape Starter, The Loser
Get it right for fuckssake.
>>793763
>68
>pro-American
I'm glad we have this many history experts on this board
>>794263
>cease
seize
You're right to view Foucault's power analysis as centred in class subjects (vide: Chomsky/Foucault), but Foucault abandons the responsibilities of solidarity learnt by the union movement and parties over 120 years since 1848. The fact that the PCF and French Unions in general were fucked up cunts doesn't mean that organisation must be abandoned.
>>794261
We're here to help, not to obscure!
You need us! We think great thoughts!
>>794287
I think Foucault was being a little naive, but it's consistent with his worldview that one must create new subjects in order to undermine the pre-existing power structures
I think he just really, really underestimated the ability of the power structures to absorb these new subjects as their own
>>794291
The prosumption of commodities wasn't the new subjectivity Foucault was interested in anyway. "Choice" was which Paris [number] University you go to.
>>794297
Yeah. I mean, I'm still incredibly sympathetic to Foucault despite his project being fatally flawed, I think. The Situationists were right tho
>>794303
Socialisme ou Barbarie were more right than the Situationalists. And 10 times their numbers. As in 100 or so.
>>794317
But Guy Debord tho
>>794324
Can Dialectics Break Bricks > Guy Debord
>>790311
>He believes in social classes
