💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › crimethinc-the-movement-as-battleground.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:50:42. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The Movement as Battleground Author: CrimethInc. Date: December 6, 2018 Language: en Topics: analysis, Yellow Vests, Paris, France, riots, fascism, anti-capitalism Source: Retrieved on 17th June 2021 from https://crimethinc.com/2018/12/06/the-movement-as-battleground-fighting-for-the-soul-of-the-yellow-vest-movement
In response to Emmanuel Macron’s proposal to increase the tax on fuel
for “ecological” reasons, France has experienced several weeks of unrest
associated with the yellow vest movement. This grassroots uprising
illustrates how the contradictions of modern centrism—such as the false
dichotomy between addressing climate change and considering the needs of
the poor—can create social movements that offer fertile ground for
populists and nationalists. At the same time, the increasing involvement
of anarchists and other autonomous rebels in the unrest raises important
questions. If far-right groups can hijack movements, as they did in
Ukraine and Brazil, can anti-capitalists and anti-authoritarians
reorient them towards more systemic solutions?
On Tuesday, December 4, the Macron government offered its first
concession, delaying the fuel tax for six months. But the story has yet
to reach its climax. Protests and police violence around France continue
unabated; now truck drivers and high school students are involved. The
yellow vest model has already spread to Belgium and there are
demonstrations called in Spain and Germany.
Another day of action has been called for this Saturday; for the first
time since the beginning of the movement, trade unions have officially
announced that they will take part. Rail workers, students, and
anti-racists are calling for people to gather at 10 am near Saint Lazare
train station. In other words, it seems that another anti-fascist and
anti-capitalist bloc is planned for Saturday. The government is
preparing to intensify state violence once more in response to this. All
the members of the government say that they are “really scared for
Saturday.”
As seems usual these days, no one on any side of the conflict seems to
have any strategy in mind except to continue escalating.
But who will benefit from this escalation? Will it radicalize ordinary
people, equipping them to defend their livelihoods against neoliberal
austerity measures by means of direct action? Will it offer the police
state a new justification for further repressive laws and measures? Will
it bring a far-right nationalist government into power in place of the
government of Macron?
Likewise, if this internally contradictory movement spreads to other
parts of Europe, what aspects of it will spread? Will it supplant
xenophobic populism with popular rage about the economy, clearing the
way for a new wave of anti-capitalism? Will it offer a vehicle for the
far right to create a surge of grassroots nationalism, opening a new era
of fascist street violence? Will it continue to be a battleground on
which nationalists, anarchists, and others vie to determine what form
the opposition to centrists like Macron will take in the years to come?
---
In the United States, in less reactionary times, the Occupy movement saw
some of the same conflicts emerge. Legalistic liberals, leftist
pacifists, insurrectionist anarchists, far-right crypto-fascists, and
unaffiliated angry poor people all converged in the movement and fought
to determine its character. At first, it was unclear whether Occupy
would be most useful to middle-class democrats, right-wing conspiracy
theorists, or the genuinely poor and desperate; in fact, in September
2011, we heard some of the same pessimism about Occupy that we heard
from anarchists about the yellow vest movement in November 2018.
However, after a few weeks, anarchists and other militant opponents of
capitalism and white supremacy seized the initiative, especially in
Occupy Oakland, focusing the movement on confronting the root causes of
poverty and ensuring that many of the people who were radicalized during
Occupy adopted emancipatory rather than reactionary politics.
We saw the opposite process play out in Ukraine two years later, when
fascists gained the initiative via the very same approach anarchists had
used in Occupy Oakland—taking the front lines in clashes with the police
and forcing their political adversaries out of organizing spaces.
Today, the far right has made considerable gains since 2014, and
conflicts worldwide are playing out at a much fiercer pitch than they
were in the days of Occupy. France has a long history of movements for
liberation, including many powerful struggles over the past decade and a
half. Hopefully, these have created powerful networks that will not let
nationalists take the lead in determining what social movements in
France will look like.
But even if we understand the movement itself as a battleground, that
only poses further questions. What is the best way to influence the
character of a movement? How do we engage in this struggle in a way that
doesn’t weaken the movement, offering the advantage to the police? How
do we remain focused on connecting with other ordinary participants in
the movement rather than getting mired in a private grudge match with
fascists?
In order to explore these questions in greater detail, we present the
following update from France. This report picks up where our previous
analysis left off, in the aftermath of the yellow vest demonstration of
November 24.
---
A week ago, total confusion reigned about the yellow vest movement—and
within it. The self-proclaimed “leaderless,” “spontaneous,” and
“apolitical” movement against the increase of taxes on gas had reached
its first impasse. How could the movement remain unified when people
from across the entire political spectrum were participating with
completely contradictory views about how to address the government, what
sort of tactics to employ, and what narratives to rally around? At the
same time, how could the movement resist the attempts from political
opportunists and party leaders to coopt it, while continuing to push?
The yellow vest movement was fracturing over these issues.
The day after the Parisian demonstration on Saturday, November 24 that
saw the avenue of the Champs Elysées transformed into a battlefield
between demonstrators and police, part of the movement voted to elect
eight official spokespersons. In doing so, they hoped to reintroduce
some good old-fashioned hierarchy and centralization into the movement,
so as to establish dialogue with the government.
Once again, with these elections, it was not easy to maintain the
appearance that the yellow vest movement was “apolitical.” Two of the
newly elected spokespersons had connections with the far-right:
Thomas Mirallès ran for the Front National (now Rassemblement National)
in the 2014 municipal elections. To defend himself, he describes this
political experience as “a youthful mistake” and emphasizes that since
that election, he “has never campaigned again.”
On social media, Eric Drouet has shared videos against migrants and
expressed arguments used by the xenophobic far right. Knowing that this
could tarnish his new “respectable” image as a spokesperson of the
movement, he deleted all his Facebook publications up to November 18.
However, these elections were rejected by another part of the movement
that refused to fall into the traps of representation and negotiation.
Some yellow vesters explicitly reject the concept of representation:
rather than having a spokesperson, the idea is that every participant
should speak for himself or herself. Moreover, after the intense
confrontations that took place during the November 24 demonstration in
Paris, several local organizers decided to distance themselves from the
movement.
The conflict within the movement didn’t stop some determined yellow
vesters from calling for another day of action on Saturday, December 1,
in order to increase the pressure on the government to rescind the
tax—or simply to destabilize the government itself. The tone was set!
It is clear now that the French government was not expecting the
demonstrators’ rage to escalate, producing hours of rioting in Paris.
When another call appeared to demonstrate in Paris the following
weekend, the government realized that they were losing control of the
situation. This is why, after weeks of expressing contempt towards the
yellow vest movement, members of the government changed their strategy
in hopes of pacifying the situation. In this regard, the decision to
elect official spokespersons for the movement was a strategic mistake,
in that it facilitated the government’s efforts to establish a
“dialogue” in which politicians would dictate terms to representatives
who would then dictate them to participants.
On Tuesday, November 27, President Macron made a public speech in order
to present the creation of the Haut Conseil pour le Climat (the High
Council for Climate), the purpose of which is to “provide an independent
perspective on the Government’s climate policy.” During his speech,
President Macron changed his strategy by directly addressing some of the
demands and concerns of the yellow vesters, presenting himself as a
pedagogue willing to listen to what people have to say. This political
masquerade failed; many members of the yellow vest movement rejected the
so-called “helping hand” offered by the president and criticized his
hypocrisy, as Macron had categorically refused to meet some yellow
vesters just that morning.
Later that day, at the request of President Macron, the Minister of
Ecological Transition, François de Rugy, received the leading figures of
the movement. This meeting was supposed to establish some kind of
dialogue between the government and the movement in order to find an
exit from the situation. However, after two hours, the deadlock
remained. Unconvinced by their exchange with the minister, the two
spokespersons reaffirmed their intention to demonstrate on Saturday,
December 1.
Understanding that the situation was escalating as more and more yellow
vesters rejected the idea of dialogue and committed to gathering in the
streets, the government tried one more time to re-establish dialogue. On
November 30, Prime Minister Edouard Philippe invited the eight
spokespersons of the movement to a meeting. This meeting was a failure,
too: in the end, only one spokesperson out of eight met with the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Ecological Transition. A second
spokesperson, Jason Herbert, left the meeting shortly after it began.
That same week, the self-proclaimed “legalist” and “official” part of
the movement, including the elected leaders and spokespersons for the
yellow vests, presented traditional media outlets with 42 demands.
Looking at this list, it is easy to see the confusion within the
movement, but also to identify some of the political influences that its
protagonists share.
The list includes demands from every position on the political spectrum.
There are social demands such as increasing minimum wage, fighting
homelessness, and increasing financial assistance to handicapped people.
But there are also reactionary demands, including deporting immigrants
who haven’t received the right to asylum, blocking migration, developing
a policy of assimilation for those who want to live in France,
increasing the presidential term from 5 to 7 years, and providing more
funding to the Justice department, the police forces, and the army.
Alongside these demands, we saw the now “classic” opposition to the
increase of taxes on gas, as well as some ecological, protectionist, and
nationalist arguments. The “legalist” or “official” part of the movement
was playing a dangerous game in giving populists from the left to the
far right reason to support the movement, if not enabling them to coopt
it completely.
Jean-Luc MĂ©lenchon, leader of the leftist populist party France
Insoumise, publicly denies that his party has engaged in any efforts to
coopt the movement; in reality, the populist leader, who is obsessed
with the idea of a coming “citizens’ revolution,” is hoping that the
anger in the streets will weaken Macron’s government. This is purely
opportunistic, as the leftist populist party aims to increase its ranks
by attracting “angry” voters in the 2019 European elections.
On the other side of the political spectrum, emboldened by the wave of
far-right victories in the US, Italy, and Brazil, nationalists know that
this movement of collective anger represents a great opportunity for
them to gain power and confirm their status as a “real political
alternative” to the current government. Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, leader of
Debout La France, has been supporting the movement from the beginning,
and some yellow vesters are members of his political party—Frank Buhler,
for example, whose video became viral online.
Marine Le Pen, leader of the Rassemblement National, believes that the
yellow vest movement represents what she’s been describing for years as
“the France of the people left behind.” The nationalist party believes
that “Yellow vesters look like our voters. Unhappy and unlucky people
because they are usually invisible, and who have a strong contempt for
politicians.” This explains why the Rassemblement National has been
extremely cautious in terms of strategy. They fear that if they attempt
to coopt the movement too obviously, they could turn the demonstrators
against them. They decided instead to offer verbal support to the
demonstrations without their leaders marching in the streets alongside
protestors. They have concentrated on communicating and defending some
of the “42 demands” in corporate media outlets. Marion Maréchal Le Pen,
niece of Marine Le Pen, said that she was present at the Champs Elysées
on November 24 and described herself as “an ardent moral support for the
yellow vesters’ suffering,” claiming to have “a lot of empathy for
them.”
Frustrated at having failed to neutralize the movement through dialogue,
and fearing that, for the second week in a row, images of chaos in the
streets of Paris would dominate the airwaves, the government decided to
take every possible measure to maintain its precious republican order
during the demonstrations of Saturday, December 1.
To secure the capital city, prevent or contain confrontations, and deal
with the infiltration of radicals and “extremist elements,” the
government arranged 5000 anti-riot police (Gendarmes and CRS) for the
day. Their mission was to control all the access routes to the Champs
Elysées, the meeting location of the demonstration. To ensure that no
dangerous objects or possible projectiles would be brought inside the
demonstration, the authorities filtered the access points, searching
every single person who wanted to enter the perimeter. These controls
were to be in effect from 6 am on Saturday, December 1 until 2 am on
Sunday, December 2.
In order to protect the most important buildings, symbols, and organs of
power, the authorities designated restricted areas where freedom of
movement would be limited. All access to the Elysée (the Presidential
palace), the Place Beauvau (the Ministry of the Interior), the HĂ´tel
Matignon (the Prime Minister’s office), or the National Assembly was
sealed off completely for the day.
Another reason the government took all those safety measures was that
the yellow vests were not the only group demonstrating that day in
Paris. At 10 am, railway workers were supposed to gather near the Saint
Lazare train station to defend their status; they planned to join the
yellow vesters after their action. At 12 pm, other trade unions were
gathering for a traditional annual march against unemployment and
precariousness. At 1 pm, several collectives of Parisian suburbs and
anti-fascists decided to gather at Saint Lazare to join the yellow vest
movement.
In short, on the eve of the December 1 national day of action, all the
elements were combining to make for a truly explosive mixture in the
streets of Paris.
Due to the dramatic scope of what happened on December 1, we cannot
provide an exhaustive list of all the actions and confrontations that
took place in the streets of Paris that day. This is only an incomplete
overview of the course of events. Also, in reference to the images and
stories presented herein, it bears saying that some of the protagonists
may be members of the far right.
Early in the morning, the first demonstrators began to converge on the
Champs Elysées. Police were already deployed and on the alert; all
yellow vesters were searched before entering the perimeter of the
demonstration. The trap set up by the government was in effect. During
the first few hours of the day, police arrested several individuals on
accusations of possessing weapons and projectiles.
Surprisingly, the safety plan set up by authorities protected the avenue
of the Champs Elysées, but not the Place de l’Etoile—the large traffic
circle around the Arc de Triomphe. Proposed by Napoléon I in 1806, the
Arc de Triomphe was inaugurated in 1836 by Louis Philippe, then King of
France, who dedicated the monument to the armies of the Revolution and
the Empire. In 1921, the French government buried the Unknown Soldier of
World War I beneath it. The flame of remembrance is revived everyday and
official military commemorations take place annually in front of the
flame. The monument is a symbol of French glory.
Aware that the Arc de Triomphe was not under police control, and knowing
that, to access the Champs Elysées, they would have to submit to a
search and have their identities checked, demonstrators began to gather
around the monument, just outside the police perimeter. At 8 am, about a
hundred yellow vesters were already on site, while the official
beginning of the demonstration was due at 2 pm. Shortly after, around 9
am, the first confrontations began when yellow vesters tried to force
their way through a checkpoint to enter the Champs Elysées. Police
responded immediately with tear gas, which only escalated the clashes.
From this vantage point, it is not easy to confirm precisely who
initiated the first confrontations or who took part. As during the
previous week, the confrontations included everyone from neo-Nazis and
other fascists to anarchists, anti-capitalists, and anti-fascists, not
to forget angry yellow vesters from many other different backgrounds and
political tendencies.
As is becoming usual with the yellow vest movement, the situation was
quite confusing. Some protestors gathered around the Unknown Soldier’s
flame as if they were paying tribute to war, nationalism, and
imperialism. Others started singing the Marseillaise—the French national
anthem. Meanwhile, the more determined protestors were throwing
cobblestones at police forces, erecting barricades in the neighboring
streets, and setting cars on fire.
Soon, the entire traffic circle was enveloped in tear gas. The situation
continued to escalate. Every time the police line got too close, rioters
welcomed them with a shower of cobblestones and other projectiles. In
the meantime, the first tags appeared on the Arc de Triomphe; this
imperial symbol was finally profaned! Sadly, although some of the tags
were clearly inscribed by anarchist and anti-statist comrades, others
were written by fascists.
The presence of organized fascist groups during the clashes around the
Place de l’Etoile during the morning of December 1 is undeniable.
Several mainstream media outlets covering the yellow vest movement
mentioned their presence among the yellow vest movement. In one article,
the journalist says: “Several police vehicles had to leave the Place des
Ternes hastily after being attacked by tens of individuals wearing
visible far-right symbols.” In another article, the author reports the
presence of monarchists, traditionalist Catholic groups, and nationalist
and fascist groups, such as the GUD (Groupe Union DĂ©fense), a far-right
student union—backing up these claims with photographs.
In their personal report about the yellow vest demonstration, anarchist
comrades also mention the presence of the far right near the Place de
l’Etoile:
“When we arrived at the Place de l’Etoile around 12 pm, it had already
been a huge chaos for almost three hours. According to some comrades we
met on site, the confrontations had been extremely violent underneath
the Arc de Triomphe during the morning. It seemed that a lot of people
had been injured. It was also in this area that radical far-right groups
were most present during the day. The GUD was there. We saw a good
amount of walls covered by Celtic crosses. The far right in its
“legalist” tendency also appeared to be well-represented among the
demonstrators. It seemed to us, and according to several other
testimonies as well, that these fascist tendencies stayed present all
day long around the Place de l’Etoile. Nevertheless, it was difficult to
really quantify them.”
The Arc de Triomphe was the focal point of confrontations throughout the
morning. Police repeatedly tried to repel protestors from the historical
monument, but not without difficulties, as evidenced by this scene in
which a group of demonstrators charged an anti-riot police unit that was
trying to protect the edifice. During the charge, one policeman was
isolated from his unit and beaten up by yellow vesters.
This event illustrated once more the confusion and disagreement within
the movement. While some yellow vesters were attacking the police
officer, others helped him to escape from his attackers, so he could
rejoin his unit. Later, another yellow vester even returned an anti-riot
shield to the police after demonstrators had seized it.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the French capital, other people in
yellow vests gathered in the district of Bastille and walked along the
large street of Rivoli, passing in front of the main City Hall of Paris,
with the objective of entering the Champs Elysées from the opposite
side—via the Place de la Concorde.
The following section draws on this narrative published by anarchists,
complemented by information from corporate media and other sources.
Around 1 pm, while the Arc de Triomphe was still surrounded by massive
clouds of tear gas, a group of comrades decided to change their strategy
and create a new dynamic by starting a wildcat demonstration and leaving
the stalemate around the traffic circle behind them. Rapidly, a
procession of 800 individuals left the square and entered the streets of
wealthy Parisian districts. The crowd was quite heterogeneous, but the
atmosphere seemed friendly.
On the Hoche avenue, the wildcat demonstration ran into a large
procession of railway workers who were heading towards the Saint Lazare
train station in order to join the afternoon call made by suburban and
anti-fascist collectives. Without thinking twice, the two processions
united and continued to march towards the meeting point. This
development shifted the horizon of possibility for the rest of the day.
When all the processions converged in the luxurious Opéra district,
thousands of individuals were marching through the streets. Over a
century ago, during the Belle Epoque era, anarchists such as Emile Henry
demonstrated the concept of propaganda of the deed in this neighborhood
by attacking the rich and their symbols in their own luxurious district.
Here, in contrast to the ambience around the Arc de Triomphe, the
atmosphere was comfortable. Within this large procession, there were
anarchists, anti-fascists, queer radicals, collectives against police
violence, railway workers, garden variety yellow vesters, some people we
might describe as rioters without adjectives, and many others, including
the simply curious. For the first time, it really seemed that some kind
of anti-capitalist and anti-fascist force could gain a foothold within
the troubled waters of the yellow vest movement.
Heading south, the large procession finally arrived at Rue de Rivoli—a
large street that connects Bastille to the Place de la Concorde, the
highly restricted area near the Presidential palace. At this point, part
of the crowd decided to go east and continue marching towards the City
Hall of Paris—where they were welcomed by police forces with tear gas.
The rest of the procession, about 1500 individuals, were determined to
go the opposite way and force their way through the police checkpoint
near Place de la Concorde.
When they approached the square, numerous police trucks and a water
cannon blocked their way. Uninterrupted and intense confrontations
followed between radicals and police forces. Barricades appeared on
different fronts, projectiles were thrown at police, while a rain of
tear gas canisters fell on protestors and the water canon attacked them
at full blast. Eventually, however, the water canon seemed to have some
technical issues. Some demonstrators seized this opportunity to set a
car on fire for use as an additional barricade.
Further away, near Saint Augustin, about 3000 individuals had been
gathering at a major intersection since 3 pm, building numerous
barricades in the area to block traffic. People were joyously expressing
their desire to overthrow President Macron. The fences of a nearby
construction site were used to erect new barricades, while others were
set on fire. A little further away, police forces were already blocking
the streets. At this point, mounted police also appeared. Not thinking
twice, protestors began breaking up the asphalt and throwing projectiles
at the police. For over an hour, a confrontation continued at this
intersection. This shows how determined people were that afternoon. In
the meantime, a nearby bank was thoroughly damaged, while other
demonstrators flipped a truck over. Law enforcement finally cleared the
area of protestors with a massive tear gas attack.
Several different parts of Paris were completely chaotic. Three cars
were burning on the fancy Haussmann Boulevard, named for the reactionary
urban planner who attempted to make Paris insurrection-proof after the
revolution of 1848. Several streets further, an empty police car was
destroyed, looted, and set aflame. A crowd of radicals arrived at Place
Vendome, well known for its luxurious jewelry stores, the Ministry of
Justice, and the infamous column that the Communards once destroyed.
Plastic Christmas trees found in the nearby streets were piled up as
barricades and set on fire.
While a thick cloud of smoke enveloped the Opera district, the
anti-capitalists decided to move towards the Bourse, the historical
stock market building—another symbol of capitalism and state power.
Granted, since 1998, no more financial transactions are made inside this
building. Nevertheless, several windows were smashed, the front doors
were opened, and fireworks made their way inside the hall. Then the
rioting crowd left the area, attacking another police car in a
neighboring street on the way. They used urban furniture and
construction equipment to block traffic, destroyed the front windows of
several banks, and disappeared into the early night.
The emergence of some kind of anti-capitalist and anti-fascist bloc was
an important development within the yellow vest movement. Likely drawing
on years of experience in demonstrations such as the May Day and Loi
Travail protests, the bloc took advantage of the general confusion to
carry out multiple actions throughout Paris with clear objectives and
intentions.
In addition to the clashes with police, there were also several
confrontations with fascists. Members of the GUD were seen on a
barricade with a Celtic cross flag. In another instance, protesters
recognized Yvan Bennedetti—a well-known Nazi and former president of the
ultranationalist Oeuvre Française, which disbanded after the killing of
anti-fascist Clément Méric in 2013. He was effectively forced out of the
area, if not out of the movement as a whole.
On Saturday, December 1, an insurrectional wind blew through the streets
of Paris. Many thousands of people unleashed their rage against symbols
of power: police were constantly harassed; banks and insurance agencies
were systematically destroyed; numerous stores were looted, some even
set on fire; cars and urban furniture were used to build barricades;
several private mansions were vandalized and set on fire; historic
monuments and republican symbols were occupied or attacked, including
the Bourse and the Arc de Triomphe. Demonstrators succeeded in entering,
looting, and destroying the museum located beneath the historical
monument.
In view of such determination, the government and police forces were
completely overwhelmed. There are several explanations for this. The
first reason is the wide range of people taking part in the riots. It
was not just anarchists and anti-capitalist radicals attacking police
forces, but also a great number of other angry people in yellow vests
including far-right activists and other rioters. Secondly, the protests
continued to change and develop throughout the day, assuming
unpredictable new forms. Finally, the extreme mobility, diffuse
organization, and determination of the protestors made them a match for
the officers, who were pinned down by their task of defending predefined
areas. Indeed, as most police forces were assigned to positions around
the restricted areas or busy dealing with confrontations near the Champs
Elysées, they couldn’t respond to the developments in other districts of
Paris. Nevertheless, on several occasions, members of the BAC
(Anti-Criminality Brigade) were seen in the streets haphazardly shooting
rubber bullets at every demonstrator in view.
Many officials and media agree that Paris hasn’t experienced such riots
since 1968. To this assessment, we must add the following figures.
Altogether, 412 individuals were arrested and 378 of them were put in
custody.
It is difficult to tell how much ammunition the police used; numbers
vary widely between sources. However, it appears that they deployed
about 8000 tear gas grenades, 1000 sting-ball grenades, 339 GLI-F4 stun
grenades, 1200 rubber bullets, and 140,000 liters of water during the
confrontations.
In the end, during the Parisian demonstration alone, 133 individuals
were injured, while the authorities counted 112 cars, 130 pieces of
urban furniture of one kind of another, and six buildings set on fire
for a total of 249 fires.
The total amount of property destruction could reach 4 million euros.
---
Paris was not the only place in France where yellow vesters expressed
their anger with actions. In various cities, protestors gathered for
this third nationwide day of action; some of them were as determined as
those who took the streets in Paris.
In Nantes, the first actions took place at the airport, where
demonstrators succeeded in entering the tarmac. In the afternoon, about
a thousand yellow vesters gathered in the streets of Nantes. The
demonstration didn’t last very long; as soon as protestors tried to
enter to the shopping district, police deployed massive quantities of
tear gas to disperse the march.
In Toulouse, intense confrontations took place between yellow vesters
and law enforcement. In Narbonne, yellow vesters set fire to a toll
collection point. In Bordeaux, clashes erupted between police and
protesters when the crowd of yellow vesters arrived at City Hall and
tried to enter by force.
In Tours, a demonstration drew about 1300 individuals. Shortly after the
beginning of the march, participants began smashing shop windows, and
confrontations with police escalated. One yellow vester lost his hand as
a consequence of a grenade thrown by police.
In Marseille, the confrontations began at the end of the day. Protestors
burned trash containers, smashed several shop windows, looted stores,
set a fire in front of the city halls of the 1^(st) and 7^(th)
districts, and finally set a police car on fire in front of the
Canebière police station. It appears that 21 individuals were arrested
after these actions. An 80 year old women was killed when a tear gas
grenade hit her in her face as she was closing her shutters.
Finally, about 3000 individuals gathered at Puy-en-Velay. Yellow vesters
entered the courtyard of the local Prefecture with tires and refused to
leave. Some of them set fire to the tires. Police forces tried to
disperse the crowd by using tear gas, but this only increased the anger
of the demonstrators. Numerous confrontations followed. The prefect
himself tried to discuss with the protestors in order to bring back
order but without any success. In the end, dissatisfied with the
situation, yellow vesters burned down the Prefecture.
The day after the demonstrations, the government knew that it had
reached an impasse of its own. President Macron was on a trip to Buenos
Aires for the G20; as soon as he heard about the situation in Paris, he
returned to France immediately to deal with this major political crisis.
On Sunday, December 2, President Macron met with some of the policemen
and firemen who had been in the streets the previous day. He also made a
small tour of the damages caused by hours of insurrectional
confrontations before heading back to the Elysée palace for an emergency
meeting with all of the government. The President asked his ministers to
cancel all their business trips for the next two days.
President Macron did not make any official declaration after the
meeting. Nevertheless, he personally asked the Prime Minister Edouard
Philippe to see all the political leaders of the different parties the
next day, as well as the spokespersons of the yellow vest movement.
In the meantime, the left populist Jean-Luc MĂ©lenchon requested that
every political group in the National Assembly opposed to the government
should make a vote of no confidence to denounce the “catastrophic
management of the yellow vest issue.” At the same time, the far-right
leader Marine Le Pen demanded the dissolution of the National Assembly.
Once more, it is not difficult to see who wants to take advantage of the
situation.
On Saturday night, the Minister of the Interior said that he was willing
to consider all possibilities to ensure republican peace and order in
France, even re-imposing the state of emergency to deal with the yellow
vest movement. This is gratuitous: in the new antiterrorist law adopted
on October 31, 2017, many of the elements that constituted the
exceptional aspect of the state of emergency are now fully integrated
into ordinary French common law—for example, the creation of restricted
zones during events.
Nevertheless, on Sunday, December 2, yellow vesters determined to push
their movement further were already planning a fourth round with the
government, calling for another national day of action on Saturday,
December 8. It happens that on the same day, the global climate march
will take place in Paris. For the occasion, radicals have made a call
for an offensive contingent. We will see whether it is possible for
these two movements to establish a connection.
On Tuesday, December 4, Prime Minister Edouard Philippe said that the
government had decided to suspend gas tax increases for the following
six months. In addition, the government is also suspending new tougher
rules on vehicle checks for the same amount of time, and committing not
to increase electricity fares until May 2019. In addition, the Prime
Minister announced that a debate about taxes and public expenses at a
national scale would take place between December 15, 2018 and March 1,
2019. In making these concessions, the government aims to show that it
is open to dialogue with yellow vesters.
Nevertheless, it seems that part of the yellow vesters are not willing
to give up the fight. The spokespersons of the yellow vest movement
rejected the invitation from the Prime Minister to find a way out of the
current situation; several local yellow vests groups are calling to
continue their actions.
So far, the government’s announcement does not seem to have had much
effect upon the ranks of the yellow vest movement. Since the beginning
of the movement on November 17, the number of demonstrators has dropped
as the intensity of conflict has escalated. Yet even if some yellow
vesters have dropped out due to the increasingly confrontational
strategy, the last day of action showed that some demonstrators are
determined to continue forward.
We still have an unknown horizon before us—and so many dawns yet to
break.
---
As we hoped, an anti-capitalist and anti-fascist front has emerged
within the yellow vest movement. In Paris on December 1, this created a
convergence point and catalyst for people who do not identify with
nationalist narratives. Hopefully, this will help to spread a discourse
that identifies the structural causes of Macron’s programs, rather than
framing them as the “betrayals” of a politician who should simply be
replaced with a more nationalistic populist.
In only three weeks, the yellow vest movement has gone from blocking
traffic to demolishing the wealthy districts of Paris. This illustrates
the efficacy of direct action, horizontality, and the refusal to
negotiate. In the era of globalized capitalism, any movement that is to
face down the neoliberal assault on the living standards of ordinary
people will be forced to escalate in this manner and to resist all
attempts to control, represent, or placate it.
As many anarchists have emphasized before, effective resistance to
capitalism requires the participation of a wide range of people, not
just those who share a common ideological framework. This means that a
movement must spread beyond the control of any one group or position.
Indeed, we can understand the yellow vest movement as a widespread
popular appropriation of the confrontational tactics that anarchists and
other rebels have been employing in France for years—for example, in the
protests against the Loi Travail and on May Day.
Yet the widespread appropriation of radical tactics is not necessarily a
step towards a better world unless people also absorb the values and
visions that accompany them. The rise of Trump and grassroots
nationalism in the US has been marked at every step by the far-right
appropriation of left and anarchist rhetoric and tactics, which they
have used to advance their own agenda.
What happens inside a movement against the reigning government is just
as important as what happens in the conflicts between that movement and
the police. This is why we have emphasized the importance of fighting on
two fronts—against Macron’s police and likewise against fascists and
nationalists.
From the outset, the yellow vest movement has claimed to be an
“apolitical” space open to all. This has offered fertile ground for
populists and nationalists to promote their ideas. In most cases, they
have not been the majority of those taking action in the streets, but
they have often set the discourse online. Fascist groups have gained
visibility, too, even if their number seems comparatively modest. They
are better organized now than they were at the beginning of the
movement. We must not abandon the streets and the movement to the far
right.
No social movement is a monolith; each is a heterogeneous space of
perpetual change and tension. It is foolish to deem movements worthy or
unworthy, standing in judgment like the Pope, relinquishing the ones
that do not meet our standards to the influence of our adversaries.
Instead, we can aim to participate in ways that enable the emancipatory
currents within them to gain momentum and become distinct from the
reactionary currents. The challenge is to offer our fellow participants
useful examples of how to solve their immediate problems and to connect
those with visions of long-term change—and to do all this without
creating tools or momentum that fascists, authoritarian leftists, or
other opportunists can capitalize on.
Perhaps we should think more about the relationship between street
battles and the battle of ideas. Historically, anarchists have often
assumed that those who are willing to take the most risks will be best
positioned to determine the character and goals of a movement. On the
ground, this is often true—for example, when a movement escalates
conflict with the police, it can force centrists and legalists to
withdraw. But we should also remember all the times that rebels from
oppressed groups have taken the most risks and suffered the most
repression, only to see authoritarians take advantage of their
sacrifices to consolidate their power. This is a very old story, from
the French revolutions of 1830, 1848, and 1870 and the Italian
Risorgimento to the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the Egyptian
Revolution of 2011.
We should bear all these lessons in mind when we weigh whether the best
way to gain leverage within a movement is to be the ones who take the
most risks within it. How can we make sure that our adversaries within
the movement cannot force us to take the majority of the casualties
while they simply—take power?
Likewise, if our only idea for how to gain leverage within a movement is
to engage in the most dangerous or disruptive activity, far-right groups
with greater social privilege and more access to resources may be able
to beat us on that playing field while taking fewer losses.
A decade ago, in less complicated times, some anarchists and autonomists
imagined that, rather than being connected by a common set of values and
aspirations, people in revolt could be connected simply by behaving
ungovernably in relation to the prevailing authorities. It is still
possible to find examples of this “anti-ideological” attitude in France
today, despite the evidence that at least a few of those who wear the
yellow vest are simply fighting to enthrone other authorities who will
be just as dangerous when they come to power. It would not be the first
time that rebellious street violence brought a new oppressive government
into office.
Yes, the order that reigns must be undermined by any means necessary.
The same goes for the proponents of rival ruling orders. Driving Yvan
Bennedetti out of a demonstration is just as important as defending it
against the police.
At the same time, it must be clear to all the newly mobilized and
politicized participants in these movements that we are not simply
robots acting according to a pre-programmed ideological framework, but
that we genuinely hope to connect with them, exchange ideas and
influences with them, and work together to create solutions to our
mutual problems. We are not trying to seduce them into joining our
party, but seeking to become something new together. Our opposition to
authoritarians is not a tenet of a religion, but a hard-won lesson about
what it takes to create spaces of freedom and possibility.
In this regard, the moments of dialogue between strangers that take
place in the street are just as important as the courageous acts by
which people hold police at bay and force out fascists. Let’s not be
naïve, let’s not disavow our opinions or abandon our convictions, but
let’s remain open to the possibility that we could become stronger and
more vibrantly alive by working with others we have not yet met, who
share our problems but not our reference points.
Sooner or later, this moment of crisis will pass—either the leaders will
cut a deal with the state and the police will succeed in isolating those
who refuse to cooperate, or Macron’s government will fall and be
replaced by another that promises to solve the problems that drove
people into the street.
And what then? Will the far right be able to claim that they were the
ones who scored the victory against Macron? Most of the aforementioned
42 demands are compatible with both leftist and far-right populist
programs; it would not be surprising to see the movement split in two
and be coopted by the two populist parties. Since the riots last
weekend, both populist leaders have been galvanized by the demand to
oust President Macron and his government. It is entirely possible that a
far-right government will come to power after Macron.
What should we be doing right now to prepare for that situation, to make
sure that people will continue to come together in the streets against
the next government?
As we fight—in France, in Belgium, and everywhere else that neoliberal
governments are forcing austerity measures on us—let’s be thinking about
how to come out of each fight more connected, more experienced, and with
a sharper way of identifying the questions before us.
Good luck to each of you, dear friends.