The following interview with Alain Krivine, one of the leaders of the French student movement and a leader of the now banned Jeunesse Communiste Revolutionnaire (J.C.R. - Revolutionary Communist Youth) was obtained by Mary-Alice Waters, of the Y.S.A. (Young Socialist Alliance) of the United States. We have left out those parts of the interview which dealt with the history of the struggle because we have already covered that aspect. The full interview appeared in the June 21st issue of THE MILITANT, obtainable from Pioneer Book Service, 8, Toynbee St, London E.1, price 1/- (3d post).
MARY-ALICE WATERS: In the United States, as in France, the Communist Party has been attacking the J.C.R. particularly, and the students in general, as being ultra-leftist, adventurist, and so fearful of the student movement?
ALAIN KRIVINE: It is important to note that almost the whole student movement - those who participated in the struggle - is to the left of the Communist Party. At present, except for the organised vanguard, these students do not have a programme, but they agree on a number of points in regard to the Communist Party. They reject reformism, they reject the C.P.'s theory of peaceful co-existence, they reject stalinism.
There are two main reasons for this. On the one hand, at first, we did not realise the impact that our activities have had in the student milieu during the past two years. The principal positions developed by the J.C.R. - a critique of the C.P., of Mitterand and Company - have become mass themes absolutely accepted by virtually the whole student movement. The full implications of the long and patient activities of the vanguard groups, the impact of our propaganda, revealed itself during the current upsurge.
Second, the attitude of the C.P. itself has contributed to this rejection of the C.P. Since the beginning of the movement, and even now, the C.P. has attacked the students very violently, accusing them of being led by ultra-leftists, which, of course, only gives additional authority to the leaders. But there are extremely perfidious attacks. For example, at the time of the barricades, the C.P. accused us of infesting the Latin Quarter with "la pègre," the scum of society, and with all the buffoons of Paris - a word-for-word repetition of Pompidou's accusation. I must say that this only leads to a more open-minded atmosphere among the students.
The Communists have a table in the courtyard of the Sorbonne; but they are endlessly besieged by hundreds of students who attack them politically. The result of all this will be that the C.P., for a very long time to come, will lose all political prestige among the students. One can say without underestimation that in the political arena - that is, among the politicised students - the C.P. is only a "handful" in comparison with the organisations of the vanguard. They will continue to have influence in the student milieu of course, but they have suffered a tremendous blow. They exposed themselves to the students, day after day, as the events unfolded, and it will be [illegible] milieu.
ACTION COMMITTEES
MARY-ALICE WATERS: What are the Action Committees and what role do they play?
ALAIN KRIVINE: Well, the Action Committees were created more or less spontaneously, although there were political militants heading them. The vanguard groups had never been able to mobilise more than seven to eight thousand students in the Latin Quarter, notably for Vietnam demonstrations. On the barricades, which is, after all, a more vigorous experience, about 15,000 students participated, and then there were 50,000 on the Champs Elysees. But we ourselves recognised that three-fourths of the students who were then completely apolitical, if not conservative, two months earlier. The former leader of F.N.E.F. (The National Federation of French Students), an extremely right-wing rival organisation of U.N.E.F., is participating in the movement and is advancing socialist ideas, fighting for a socialist revolution, criticising the C.P. from the left. It's a spectacular reversal for the student movement!
Since no organisation had hegemony over the whole student movement, the students felt the necessity of organising themselves into committees to give structure to the whole movement. The Action Committees unite all the students of the movement - members of organisations, non-members, and they exist in all the various schools of the university.
The Action Committees began at the university, but the second stage opened when hundreds of workers began coming to the Sorbonne, which played the role of the Smolny Institute at the time of the Russian Revolution. That is, the students served as an example. They played a leadership role when the working class entered the struggle. The workers, very often, came to the Sorbonne [illegible] Action Committees extended to all of Paris, to all of the districts. The Action Committees, which were at first led by the students, quickly embraced all sectors of the population, workers and housewives, everyone. In certain districts, Action Committees of 150 to 200 persons, only 10 of whom were students, were formed.
[illegible] POWER
There are about 300 Action Committees in Paris, which group together workers, students, professors; everybody and anybody is in these Action Committees. The Action Committees serve a [illegible] kind of infrastructure [illegible].
When the revolutionary movement was at its peak, certain Action Committees developed a much higher level of organisation - that is to say, certain Action Committees, particularly in the provinces became genuine embryos of dual power.
Today there is a real shortage of some products in Paris. There is not enough sugar and coffee. There are no cigarettes, and there is not enough gasoline. In certain very localised places, for example in Nantes, the Action Committees purchased and distributed goods, without receiving any [illegible] these Committees blossomed into genuine embryos [illegible].
COMMITTEES
MARY-ALICE WATERS: In the factories have there been similar Action Committees or strike committees which have played a vanguard role?
ALAIN KRIVINE: In the factories the political vanguard does not have the leadership. The movement in the factories was also started in a spontaneous way by the youth. An example I can give is the Renault plant - an example which was multiplied many times.
The movement started off with 150 youth, spread out in three workshops, for the most part unorganised. They closed the workshops and decreed an unlimited general strike; carrying a red flag, they marched through the factory calling for a general strike. The unions were completely outflanked. Much later, after long deliberation, the C.P. called for a strike.
The workers did not anticipate this movement; no one anticipated it. The workers have never been educated in what socialist strategy is. The C.P. has kept the movement under control, although they have been contested.
The C.P. is opposed to the creation of strike committees. The C.P. has ordered three-fourths of the workers back home. The strike pickets are mainly composed of C.G.T. and C.P. members. There is no genuine political life in the factories - there are some strike committees, but they are often simply trade-union liaison committees at the union brass level. In certain factories [illegible] there are genuine strike committees, democratically run, having elections, etc., but this is extremely rare. The vanguard workers are even blocked by strike pickets from entering their factories. That is why the most advanced elements participate in the Action Committees of their neighbourhoods set up by students. [illegible] political life has shifted from the factory to the neighbourhood.
THE ROLE OF U.N.E.F.
MARY-ALICE WATERS: The press has talked a lot about U.N.E.F.; could you explain exactly what U.N.E.F. is and what role it plays?
ALAIN KRIVINE: U.N.E.F. is a student union of about 60,000. It is not a political [illegible] it is a union that [illegible] left-wing militants, [illegible] by the C.P. [illegible] role during the Algerian War directing the struggle against the war. [illegible] militants in U.N.E.F. When U.N.E.F. organises a demonstration, the monitors of U.N.E.F. are in reality the [illegible] We are all [illegible] only means we have a [illegible] heterogeneous; there is no organisation that [illegible]. There are political [illegible] like the J.C.R., which plays a predominant role as a political organisation, but the totality of [illegible] U.N.E.F. was able to play a unifying role by calling demonstrations, etc., but it has no following in and of itself in the student milieu.
THE J.C.R. "SURVIVED"
MARY-ALICE WATERS: What has been the role of the J.C.R. itself in all the events of the past months?
ALAIN KRIVINE: In reality, we are the only organisation that "survived". The student masses - during the whole crisis - underwent a profound self-criticism. Amongst the student milieu there was no [illegible] prejudice towards the vanguard groups, [illegible] prejudice towards the C.P. and social democracy. The student masses subjected each group to an intense scrutiny. During all the general assemblies, as soon as someone took the floor and said something they didn't like, they whistled and stopped the speaker from continuing.
The Lambertists (a sectarian group which broke from the Fourth International) and the Maoists, because of their sectarian positions, have actually discredited themselves among the students. The dynamics of the movement obviously taught them nothing. They were undercut just like that. The J.C.R. was the only organisation to be not only tolerated but to enjoy very real and important support. It has a considerable audience at the present moment, especially among the students and High School kids. But it has also made very important inroads among the workers. Many workers are joining us now; we enjoy significant sympathy in certain sectors of the working class. For us this fact is one of most positive results of the struggle.
This sympathy is due to the following fact: the militants of the J.C.R. did not lose themselves in the Sorbonne. Either working with the Action Committees, or as J.C.R. militants, they went to the factory gates and to the different neighbourhoods to discuss politics. Their activities were oriented towards the working class. [illegible] that the J.C.R. will come out of this experience very much reinforced. The capitalist press does not delude itself - it frequently speaks of the J.C.R., not out of sympathy, but because it represents a genuine political current.
THE THREAT OF FASCISM
MARY-ALICE WATERS: You hear quite a bit of talk about the threat of fascism as the current upsurge subsides. What is your opinion on this?
ALAIN KRIVINE: The fascist groups were very weak and very ineffectual during this crisis. They did not have more than 100 members in the Latin Quarter, organised in squads, and under military discipline. Up to now, or even now, I don't think there is a real fascist danger; but there is a real danger of repression. Although a strong state apparatus prevailed up to now, it did not appear as such, because the working class was not in motion. Now that it has entered the struggle, the strong state will show its true colours. It will try to employ goons to suppress strikes; already individual militants have been attacked. The Government has set up Committees for Civic Action, which are genuine goon squads.
The farmers and the petit-bourgeoisie were beginning to follow the workers, but now, because of the betrayal of the C.P., they find themselves without a leadership, without an alternative offered by the workers' movement. As unemployment rises they will either follow de Gaulle or under extreme economic difficulties (without really [illegible] speaking of a fascist danger) they might follow the leadership of the nationalist organisations. The bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie, terrified by the revolutionary potential, marched 500,000 strong at a pro-Gaullist demonstration on the Champs-Elysees on May 30. Their slogans were fascist in character, such as "Cohn-Bendit to Dachau," etc.
INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT
MARY-ALICE WATERS: What has been the international student response to the struggles here in France?
ALAIN KRIVINE: Internationally, the movement snowballed. We worked here month after month to organise demonstration after demonstration in support of the students' struggles in Germany and Italy. We never thought that our turn would come so soon. The movements of solidarity in Germany, in Italy, in Belgium, as well as in Rome, where thousands of students marched under the slogan of "two, three, many Parises," had a great impact on us; we feel part of a vast movement. I think this fact will help to reinforce the revolutionary vanguard.
During the strike we didn't have the time to make much contact internationally, but since the beginning of the struggles there have been numerous delegations from the revolutionary student organisations in Italy, Germany, Belgium and England. They want to discuss with us, they want to learn from our experiences, they want to aid us financially. Since the Berlin demonstration in February, all these student organisations have participated in struggles in their own countries and are putting up a fight. We will all come out of this with a much richer experience.
The authority of the J.C.R. stems from the manner in which it integrated itself into the movement. At its inception the movement had an almost anarchic character, all leadership, all organisational apparatus. At first, although the J.C.R. had some sympathy, it was nevertheless looked upon with suspicion - we were too organised, too centralised, we had too much of a structure and disciplined, this organisation shocked many [illegible].
THE NECESSITY OF ORGANISATION
We understood the movement from its inception. We knew that it would not remain at its embryonic stage. Little by little, through their own experiences, the students understood the necessity of a political leadership, of an organisation. Although we integrated ourselves completely into the movement, we played a leading role. We did not play a sectarian role - that is to say we did not arrive with ready-made ideas and solutions, we did not impose our organisation, if we did, we would have been thrown out.
Little by little, as the movement progressed, we were only one step ahead of the students instead of 50, and little by little we developed our tactics, we enlarged our conceptions of organisation, of the revolutionary perspective, of dual power. We developed these themes at a time when the students felt a need for them.
This makes all the difference between us and Daniel Cohn-Bendit. Cohn-Bendit was [illegible] the leader at the beginning. He and his idealistic ideas corresponded to the realities of the movement as it was then. But now events have by-passed Cohn-Bendit, unless he changes. His political conceptions regarding the spontaneity of the movement, and regarding certain Marcusian tenets, remained the same, whereas the movement entered a new stage. I think that the non-sectarian attitude of the J.C.R., its integration into the movement, and the vanguard role it played in subsequent events, are some of the reasons for the great support it enjoys.
We have made mistakes, but we have understood the dynamics of this mass movement. That is decisive.