 Since the occupation movement of May '68, we have seen a whole collection of small organisations which claim to follow trotskyism, maoism or anarchism, developing to the left of the Communist Party and the C.G.T [1]. Despite the tiny percentage of workers who join their ranks, they pretend to compete with the traditional organisations for control of the working class, of which they proclaim themselves the vanguard. The ridiculousness of their pretensions might make you laugh, but laughter is not enough. It is necessary to look deeper, to understand why the modern world produces these bureaucratic extremists, and to tear away the mask of their ideologies in order to reveal their true historical role. As far as possible, revolutionaries must distance themselves from leftist organisations, and show that far from threatening the old world order, the action of these groups can at best only lead to its reconditioning. Starting to criticise them prepares the ground for the revolutionary movement, which will be obliged to liquidate them, or else risk being liquidated itself. The first temptation which presents itself is to attack their ideologies, to point out how archaic or exotic these are ( from Lenin to Mao ), and to expose the contempt for the masses which lies concealed behind their demagogy. But when you consider there are enormous numbers of organisations and tendencies, all of them anxious to affirm their tiny ideological originality, this would soon become tiresome. Moreover it would amount to placing yourself on their level. Rather than their ideas, it is more appropriate to take on the activity which they deploy « in the service of their ideas » : MILITANCY. If we take militancy as a whole this is not because we deny the differences which exist between the activities of the various organisations. But we think that despite -- and even because of -- their importance, these differences can only be adequately explained by taking militancy as their origin. The various ways of being militant are only different responses to the same fundamental contradiction, a contradiction which no one has a solution to. In taking the activity of the militant as the starting point of our critique we do not underestimate the importance of the role of ideas within militancy. But from the moment that these ideas are put forward, without any connection to activity, it becomes important to know what they conceal. We will show the discrepancy between them, we will connect the ideas to the activity and reveal the impact of the activity on the ideas : seeking behind the lie the reality of the liar, in order to understand the reality of the lie. While the criticism and condemnation of militancy is an essential task for revolutionary theory, it can only be done from the « point of view » of the revolution. Bourgeois ideologues can treat militants as dangerous hooligans or as manipulated idealists, and advise them to occupy their time with work, or in getting away to Club Méditerranée; but they cannot attack militancy in depth, for that would expose the misery of the activities permitted in modern society. We don't intend to hide our bias, our criticisms will not be « objective and valid from all the points of view ». This critique of militancy cannot be separated from the construction of revolutionary organisations, not just because the organisations of militants will need to be fought without relaxation, but also because the struggle against the tendency towards militancy must be taken to the heart of even revolutionary organisations. Clearly this is because, at least initially, these organisations are likely to be made up from a significant proportion of « repented » former militants, but it is also because militancy is rooted in the alienation of each one of us. Alienation is not eliminated by waving a magic wand and militancy is the special trap which the old world sets for revolutionaries. What we say about militants is firm and without appeal. We are not prepared to compromise with them, these are not revolutionaries who have made a mistake, nor are they semi-revolutionaries, they are people who remain on this side of the revolution. However this doesn't mean ( 1 ) that we exempt ourselves from this critique, for if we make a point of being clear and sharp we do so firstly with regard to ourselves; or ( 2 ) that we condemn militants as individuals and make this condemnation a matter of morality. It is not a question of falling back on a separation of the good from the bad. We don't underestimate the temptation to say « the more I mouth off about militants, the more I prove that I'm not one, and the more I shelter myself from criticism ! » Notes [1] CGT -- Confédération Générale du Travail, trade union federation traditionally having close links to the French Communist Party ( translators note ). |