none of which ever actually achieved anything remotely comparable. Obviously, there are criticisms to be made of AES, as with any project.
I think most of them argued that a failed revolution (one that simply rebuilds the power structures of the previous society) are not much different than no revolution and in fact don't constitute a dialectical progression.
1968 was primarily a movement of labor unions, the largest of which was affiliated with the Marxist-Leninist CPF.
CPF opposed it and worked with Charles de Gaulle lmao
You can even find it on the Wikipedia article about it:
"In May 1968 widespread student riots and strikes broke out in France. The PCF initially supported the general strike but opposed the revolutionary student movement, which was dominated by Trotskyists, Maoists and anarchists, and the so-called "new social movements" (including environmentalists, gay movements, prisoners' movement). Georges Marchais, in L'Humanité on May 3, virulently denounced the leaders of the movement in an article entitled "False revolutionaries who must be exposed". He referred to student leader Daniel Cohn-Bendit as the "German anarchist".[16][17] Although the PCF and the CGT were compelled by their base to join the movement as it expanded to take the form of a general strike, the PCF feared that it would be overwhelmed by events - especially as some on the left, led by Mitterrand were attempting to use Charles de Gaulle's initial vacillations to create a political alternative to the Gaullist regime. It welcomed Prime Minister Georges Pompidou's willingness to dialogue and it supported the Grenelle agreements. When de Gaulle regained the initiative over the situation on 30 May, by announcing the dissolution of the National Assembly and snap elections, the PCF quickly embraced the President's decision."
And I’m deeply skeptical of your idea that the situationists could have toppled the French state. There were like 2 dozen of them active and an entire military ready to do whatever in response.
It wasn't their numbers, it was their approach. Their politics are politics of radical response to alienation, an alienation that, as we see more and more, is the main stranglehold on class consciousness and mobilization of the modern proletariat.
I think most of them argued that a failed revolution (one that simply rebuilds the power structures of the previous society) are not much different than no revolution and in fact don’t constitute a dialectical progression.
Yeah, the USSR wasn't much different from Russia under the Tsar. Sorry, but opinion ---> :dumpster-fire: for anyone who claims that seriously.
Edit: oh god it's even fucking worse when you apply that logic to China.
It wasn’t their numbers, it was their approach. Their politics are politics of radical response to alienation, an alienation that, as we see more and more, is the main stranglehold on class consciousness and mobilization of the modern proletariat.
Like I said, regardless of your opinion on the PCF and its actions (I'd say that they, like many western parties, were and are not great), you are crediting a tiny group of philosophers and artists for a movement which they absolutely did not start, and in which the vast majority of people definitely had not read Debord.
Yeah, the USSR wasn’t much different from Russia under the Tsar
I'm talking about the previous society in the materialist dialectical geneology of societies as a whole.
Like I said, regardless of your opinion on the PCF and its actions (I’d say that they, like many western parties, were and are not great), you are crediting a tiny group of philosophers and artists for a movement which they absolutely did not start, and in which the vast majority of people definitely had not read Debord.
Debord and Marcuse in particular were widely read and responsible for a massive student movement. The banner of the three Ms (Marx, Mao, Marcuse) was like THE symbol of 1968.
Yes, still academic. It's like rule one of Marxism that you have to actually work in order to be a revolutionary class. Students are not a revolutionary class.
This is just a repackaging of people who achieved nothing in the imperial core shitting on people who achieved a whole lot in colonized nations.
Turns out this was not true (like many aspects of Marx's predictions about class consciousness and the standpoint of the proletariat) and that it's just as possible for labor organizing to be wildly reactionary in this given example.
This is just a repackaging of people who achieved nothing in the imperial core shitting on people who achieved a whole lot in colonized nations.
Not really. Any revolution has to be worldwide, and efforts to bring about revolution in the imperial core have far more impact than outside of it if that imperial core will just crush the latter again.
and efforts to bring about revolution in the imperial core have far more impact than outside of it if that imperial core will just crush the latter again.
Huh, funny how this isn't actually true when you look up from a philosophy treatise and at history.
efforts to bring about revolution in the imperial core have far more impact than outside of it
And that's why I wish r*dditros were right about china being imperialist cuz then the Imperial Core would shift to a place where revolutions had happened in the past
China is not overtly imperialist, but their economic maneuvering will likely give them the biggest say in the 21st century when it comes to how other countries behave.
I think most of them argued that a failed revolution (one that simply rebuilds the power structures of the previous society) are not much different than no revolution and in fact don't constitute a dialectical progression.
CPF opposed it and worked with Charles de Gaulle lmao
You can even find it on the Wikipedia article about it:
"In May 1968 widespread student riots and strikes broke out in France. The PCF initially supported the general strike but opposed the revolutionary student movement, which was dominated by Trotskyists, Maoists and anarchists, and the so-called "new social movements" (including environmentalists, gay movements, prisoners' movement). Georges Marchais, in L'Humanité on May 3, virulently denounced the leaders of the movement in an article entitled "False revolutionaries who must be exposed". He referred to student leader Daniel Cohn-Bendit as the "German anarchist".[16][17] Although the PCF and the CGT were compelled by their base to join the movement as it expanded to take the form of a general strike, the PCF feared that it would be overwhelmed by events - especially as some on the left, led by Mitterrand were attempting to use Charles de Gaulle's initial vacillations to create a political alternative to the Gaullist regime. It welcomed Prime Minister Georges Pompidou's willingness to dialogue and it supported the Grenelle agreements. When de Gaulle regained the initiative over the situation on 30 May, by announcing the dissolution of the National Assembly and snap elections, the PCF quickly embraced the President's decision."
It wasn't their numbers, it was their approach. Their politics are politics of radical response to alienation, an alienation that, as we see more and more, is the main stranglehold on class consciousness and mobilization of the modern proletariat.
Yeah, the USSR wasn't much different from Russia under the Tsar. Sorry, but opinion ---> :dumpster-fire: for anyone who claims that seriously.
Edit: oh god it's even fucking worse when you apply that logic to China.
Like I said, regardless of your opinion on the PCF and its actions (I'd say that they, like many western parties, were and are not great), you are crediting a tiny group of philosophers and artists for a movement which they absolutely did not start, and in which the vast majority of people definitely had not read Debord.
I'm talking about the previous society in the materialist dialectical geneology of societies as a whole.
Debord and Marcuse in particular were widely read and responsible for a massive student movement. The banner of the three Ms (Marx, Mao, Marcuse) was like THE symbol of 1968.
Yes, still academic. It's like rule one of Marxism that you have to actually work in order to be a revolutionary class. Students are not a revolutionary class.
This is just a repackaging of people who achieved nothing in the imperial core shitting on people who achieved a whole lot in colonized nations.
Turns out this was not true (like many aspects of Marx's predictions about class consciousness and the standpoint of the proletariat) and that it's just as possible for labor organizing to be wildly reactionary in this given example.
Not really. Any revolution has to be worldwide, and efforts to bring about revolution in the imperial core have far more impact than outside of it if that imperial core will just crush the latter again.
Huh, funny how this isn't actually true when you look up from a philosophy treatise and at history.
Actually it is
Right, I think I'm done with this discussion.
Removed by mod
And that's why I wish r*dditros were right about china being imperialist cuz then the Imperial Core would shift to a place where revolutions had happened in the past
:think-about-it:
China is not overtly imperialist, but their economic maneuvering will likely give them the biggest say in the 21st century when it comes to how other countries behave.