Strengths and Limits of Recent Social Movements
 As one could see again recently during the strikes, however limited, by French railwaymen, as long as the movement was dynamic -- during the first week -- it took place without any official registration or democratic sanction. It was possible to hear from the mouths of strikers these completely anti-democratic sentences which clearly demonstrate how a movement functions. « We don't vote, since everyone is in agreement ». Then « We voted not to stop trains, but we stopped them anyway ». It's not a matter of saying there is never any need for debate because the movement will obey a blind logic, or because proletarians will be pushed to the front by the « contradictions of capitalism ». The path is never marked out in advance and all the time there are practical problems to resolve, with the risk of disagreements and confrontations, which may be violent, over the immediate decisions to be taken. Nothing excludes the possibility that it is sometimes necessary to know how to step back and catch your breath before setting out again with renewed vigour. During the English miners strike in 1984-5 [10] , the logic of 'to the finish' prevented such a tactic. But after three months some might have decided to go back to work to get wages in order to immediately go back on strike. To take this sort of decision obviously requires discussion and debate. But the form these take, be it the vote which permits one to « know the opinion » of the majority, or the democratic character of the assemblies, offers no guarantee as to the content of the decisions made. It is now necessary to reconsider the latest object of worship of democratic ideology : the « coordinations » which have flourished since the winter of 1986 every time proletarians have attempted to take their affairs in hand. [11] Of course this form of organisation starts from the correct idea that it is necessary to unite outside the « workers » organisations, which from now on are one of the best supporters of the system, and attempt to go beyond the sectional barriers imposed by capitalist organisation - at least in the best cases, because inside the same firm there are often extremely corporatist tendencies which do not unite. An example was provided during the recent movements in the RATP ( Parisian public transport ) in Nov-Dec 1988. Once having achieved their demands the train crews did not assist the maintenance shop workers. As for the latter they established no links with the bus drivers who were on strike at the same time. In the same way at the time of the nurses struggles there was no coordination ( ! ) with the nursing assistants, the masseurs, the intensive care workers or the maintenance workers, categories which could only be seen marching one after the other. However in those rare cases where the sectional barriers defended by the unions have been crossed, this practise of openness has still not been sufficient to surmount one of the principal weaknesses of these movements : their inability to break the categories down and call them into question. The action by hospital staff in the autumn of 1988 is a classic example. Thousands of nurses took to the streets, held numerous assemblies and knew how to create a nationwide network of coordinations in a few days. But what was this fine example of « direct democracy » used for ? Was it to pose the central questions of « health » ? or of « medicine » ? Knowing how to bandage or operate on an injured person is all very well; but why are all these patients sick ? And as for the psychiatry, the chemical straightjacket keeping « alive » vegetables in agony, is this « health » ? Why is the doctor the boss and the nurse his servant ? . . . what were these coordinations used for in reality ? Merely to negotiate with power in the place of the unions or even to put pressure on the unions so that they negotiated « better ». Hardly had the nuclear power workers at Pierrelatte gone on strike than they got a 35 hour week. Perfect. But in the long run it will be necessary for them to pose the questions of maintaining nuclear power and of their role as workers. By contrast, two other struggles, the first by the workers in SNECMA ( aircraft engine manufacturer ), and the second by postal sorting office workers, succeeded in forcing a little deeper the wedge that had been driven in by the rail workers. The strike at SNECMA was remarkable for several reasons. Firstly, the workers left the workplace to make their strike known, something which had not been seen for some years. They presented an anti-economic demand by asking for 500 francs extra for everybody. The strike which lasted two months did not end in defeat but was succeeded by other forms of struggle. The strikers continued their action in spite of media misrepresentation ( this was the time of the presidential elections ) demonstrating a salutary disregard for the democratic masquerade. The strike was also marked by massive participation by the workers : when a thousand of them went out to popularise the struggle, there still remained a greater number in occupation. Finally the work of propaganda and the production of leaflets was done by the workers themselves. The only shadow cast on this picture was that the « coordinations » were not openly anti-union but joint bodies involving them. As for the postmen they succeeded in establishing coordinations between different sorting offices which remained in a minority but functioned entirely outside of the unions, the production of leaflets being done without any outside assistance. Notes [10] See on this subject Henri Simon To the bitter end, Ed. Acratie [11] See the leaflet « We who amongst other things are users and unemployed » |