Anarchy 89/I am a megaphone

214

I am a megaphone

DANIEL COHN-BENDIT

St. Nazaire, May 18th

If you say the stu­dents are sons of bour­geois you are right. But a minor­ity of them have made a com­plete break with their class. They are ready to join up with the work­ers, the peas­ants, the stu­dents; on the other, the bour­geois. The bour­geois will not fight in the streets. And their police are tied down in Paris. There are not enough of them to go round. The first phase of the ad­vanced strug­gle we are lead­ing must be the oc­cu­pa­tion of the factor­ies. Then the set­ting up of re­volu­tion­ary coun­cils. We must find new forms of man­age­ment. We must be mas­ters of the means of pro­duc­tion. Equal­ity of wages—that is very im­port­ant. Wages must be equal in an egal­it­arian so­ciety.

  It is not a ques­tion of at­tack­ing the trade union move­ment, but of creat­ing the con­di­tions for a work­ers’ demo­cracy, where each, what­ever his slo­gans or ban­ners, can have his say. I at­tack the lead­ers of the union organ­isa­tions, I do not at­tack the ordin­ary union member. Unity of the labour move­ment will be achieved by the young. Shop by shop the young union­ists must unite. Unity won’t come from the top.

Frankfurt, May 23rd

Q: How do you de­scribe your polit­ical posi­tion?

A: Basic­ally I am an anarch­ist … a <span data-html="true" class="plainlinks" title="Wikipedia: Marx­ist-anarch­ist">Marx­ist-anarch­ist.

215

Q: Some journal­ists have de­scribed you as the leader of the re­volu­tion …

A: Let them write their rub­bish. These people will never be able to under­stand that the stu­dent move­ment doesn’t need any chiefs. I am neither a leader nor a pro­fes­sional re­volu­tion­ary. I am simply a mouth­piece, a mega­phone.

Q: What is the reason for your ex­pul­sion from France?

A: I don’t begin to under­stand why de Gaulle had me ex­pelled. Can he really be so stupid?

Q: You talk as if you have a per­sonal hatred for Gen­eral de Gaulle. …

A: It is a tactic, natur­ally. Above all to de­fend my­self against the ac­cus­a­tions of the Party, which wants to pass me off as an <span data-html="true" class="plainlinks" title="Wikipedia: agent-pro­vocat­eur">agent-pro­vocat­eur of the re­gime. And this is be­cause at the mo­ment they do not want de Gaulle to be de­feated.

Q: Would you sup­port a Popular Front?

A: A Popular Front at the mo­ment would be an ex­tremely pos­it­ive step in clar­ify­ing the situ­a­tion: the masses would end up by under­stand­ing better the na­ture of the trade-union bur­eau­cracy and the tradi­tional working-class parties and then an al­tern­at­ive on the left of the Com­mun­ist Party could very easily be formed.

Q: Isn’t that a little bit of an over-sim­pli­fic­a­tion?

A: Not at all. Look, there are two ex­treme pos­sibil­it­ies: on the one hand the vic­tory of a fas­cist-type re­ac­tion and the relat­ive de­feat of the pro­let­ariat for at least a dec­ade. On the other hand there might be the de­velop­ment of a situ­a­tion like that in Russia at the begin­ning of this cen­tury: 1905 or else Febru­ary 1917. If it turns out to be a Febru­ary 1917 situ­a­tion, say we have a so-called Popular Front with a Keren­sky by the name of Mitter­rand or <span data-html="true" class="plainlinks" title="Wikipedia: Waldeck-Rochet">Waldeck-Rochet. Cer­tainly there is no short­age of Men­shev­iks: the dif­fi­culty is to find any Bol­shev­iks!

Q: But is it pos­sible to have a French re­volu­tion in a va­cuum?

A: No. The re­volu­tion in one coun­try is cer­tainly not feas­ible. Also from an eco­nomic point of view. An eco­nomic crisis, caused for ex­ample by so­cial con­flict, cannot re­main isol­ated in one coun­try. Or a finan­cial crisis, a dollar crisis, trans­cends as you know, all coun­tries. The sys­tem is inter­na­tional. How­ever we have to begin by under­min­ing each par­tic­u­lar part of it, and in Paris that’s what we have begun. In Paris the situ­a­tion could truly be de­scribed as pre-revolu­tion­ary.

View from the East   Daniel Cohn-Bendit and his al­lies are were­wolves split­ting the pro­gres­sive move­ment against cap­it­al­ism. —pravda, 30.5.68.

Q: What is the role of the Com­mun­ist Party in all this?

A: The Party is one of the two power-struc­tures which at the mo­ment are prop­ping each other up. De Gaulle and his State on the one

216

hand, the Party and the Unions on the other. De Gaulle is on the de­fens­ive, and he is de­fend­ing his posi­tion of power in the State. The Party is on the de­fens­ive be­cause it is ob­liged to de­fend its posi­tion of power within the working-class move­ment. Our ac­tion, by con­trast, is of­fens­ive: that is its ad­vant­age. All these inter­medi­ate and trans­it­ory ob­ject­ives arising from the present situ­a­tion, all the strong pres­sures from below, are push­ing away at the old struc­tures of power. You know, in this situ­a­tion, the Party hasn’t very much will to take the reins of the bour­geois state into its hands. Moscow is cer­tainly against it: they have very much more reli­ance on the Gen­eral than on the little bur­eau­crats of the French Com­mun­ist Party.

Q: Conse­quently a Popular Front would de­tach the masses from the party?

A: Yes, that’s more or less the idea, but don’t for­get that in real­ity the whole thing is very much more com­plex. The ex­ist­ence of the Party is an ob­ject­ive real­ity, one can’t de­cide from one day to another to elim­in­ate it. It is thanks to the Party and the CGT that the con­cept of the class-struggle has kept its sig­ni­fic­ance in the working-class con­scious­ness. Our ac­com­plish­ment will be to make con­scious the di­vi­sions which ex­ist be­tween the de­clar­a­tions of the Party and its ac­tual re­form­ist polit­ics. In the strug­gles of the last few days we have made enorm­ous strides.

Q: But the work­ers haven’t let you enter the factor­ies.

A: It’s not true. The func­tion­ar­ies of the Party have only par­tially suc­ceeded in clos­ing the factory gates on us. They have had to do this so as not to lose their posi­tion of power, but this has cost them and is going to cost them a great deal.

Q: Do you think of the stu­dent move­ment as a new Inter­na­tional?

A: At the mo­ment there are in­di­vidual con­tacts and group con­tacts on an inter­na­tional level, but it is not yet pos­sible to speak of com­mon ac­tion. Ac­tion is born from below, from the ac­tual situ­a­tion. It’s just the same as in the struggle against cap­it­al­ism.

Q: Are you think­ing, then, of in­tens­ify­ing con­tact?

A: Cer­tainly, but that is not the central prob­lem. Co-ordin­a­tion would be a posit­ive gain, but a Stu­dent Inter­na­tional doesn’t inter­est me. It doesn’t inter­est me at all. What we need to form is a new re­volu­tion­ary left, of which the stu­dent move­ment would be a com­pon­ent. Other­wise the stu­dent move­ment will re­main isol­ated, within the limits of a move­ment of pro­test. But we may al­ready be over­com­ing this. In France, in Italy, and to some ex­tent in Germany, there are al­ready links with the work­ing class, even if they are only at a local level.

Q: What do you think will be the organ­isa­tional form of the new re­volu­tion­ary move­ment?

A: It isn’t yet pos­sible to say. … We are creat­ing groups at the bottom: work­ers and stu­dents who col­labor­ate for local ac­tion. But I don’t think it’s pos­sible to be more pre­cise than this.

Q: Per­haps they are al­ready Bol­shev­iks of the new re­volu­tion, per­haps they have al­ready de­cided to in­sti­tute the dic­tat­or­ship of the pro­let­ariat?

A: No, not the dic­tat­or­ship of the pro­let­ariat. We are against all au­thor­ity.