A-Infos (en) France, OCL: How and with whom should we proceed on September 10th? (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

Based on contributions from OCL comrades and those close to them, we 
discussed in Courant Alternatif the nature, impact, and possible 
consequences of the "Block Everything" mobilization, as in the text " A 
Look Back at 'Block Everything on September 10th' ." This discussion 
continued in the November issue with the text " On September 10th, Who 
and What Was It? - Reflections on the 'Supervisory Class' . " ---- Of 
course, we are not the only ones conducting these debates, which are 
proving all the more important as there are plans to repeat this in 
March 2026 with a " black week ". ---- To continue this debate beyond 
our anarchist-communist circle, we are revisiting two texts that we 
found interesting because they resonate with essential activist 
concerns: with whom and how to fight? The first comes from the 
Grenoble-based counter-information newspaper "Le Postillon" and examines 
the purist (puritanical?) functioning of general assemblies and the 
potential reach of this approach. The second is an assessment of the 
actions of an "autonomous" collective in Rennes, which explores the 
ruptures and transcendences (political, economic, and class-based) that 
revolutionaries can introduce into the struggles of the current period, 
marked by a neo-reformism tainted by state fetishism.

This is just the beginning, let's continue the debate...

September 10 in Grenoble: "Between us..."?

Oh purity!
Tensions had been building for weeks. On September 10th, everything was 
going to be blocked, we were going to see something extraordinary: the 
new Yellow Vests, a leaderless movement starting from the grassroots 
that was terrifying the authorities. And then, in the end: not much 
happened. Blockades were quickly cleared, there was a good-sized 
demonstration, and... almost nothing.
What went wrong? This is the account of a fourth-degree black belt in 
social movements, who already had a bad feeling about this while 
attending a preparatory general assembly. The aim of her critical 
reflection is to encourage consideration of one of the causes of this 
failure.

Tuesday, September 2nd, 6 p.m.
A few days before what promises to be a massive mobilization, I decide 
to drop by the general assembly (GA) preparing for September 10th. The 
day of action has been in preparation for several weeks. The Telegram 
channel [1]"Block Everything! Isère" already has a considerable number 
of participants - more than 3,100 today. The slogans (tax justice, 
denunciation of the Bayrou plan and the elimination of two public 
holidays), as well as the spontaneous emergence of the movement on 
social media, could be reminiscent of the Yellow Vests. It is probably 
no coincidence that the GAs are being held at the foot of the Perret 
Tower, a rallying point for the Yellow Vests during their Saturday 
demonstrations.

The comparison with the Yellow Vests is on everyone's mind, both in the 
media and in everyday conversations. As six years ago, the same 
reservations persist: isn't the movement riddled with far-right 
extremism? Where do the "masterminds" come from, and do we even know who 
they are? Should we get involved in a poorly defined and vaguely defined 
anger?
Only this time, the "left-wing" activists, aware that they missed the 
boat last time, have decided not to repeat the same mistake.

There's a really good turnout at this general assembly (the organizers 
will announce 300 people); on the lawn of Paul Mistral Park, a dense 
crowd sits in a circle, quietly, around a dozen clearly experienced 
organizers, microphone and sound system well set up. The participants 
are mostly young, many faces are unfamiliar to me; but many others, on 
the contrary, are very familiar; the entire activist spectrum seems to 
be gathered, from union members (mostly present but discreet), to 
political activists who have come en masse, from La France Insoumise 
(very involved), to far-left organizations, not forgetting the 
traditional autonomists recognizable by their costumes and masks 
(perhaps to facilitate the work of the police, who might then be able to 
spot them even more quickly?). This little world seems, all things 
considered, quite homogeneous...

The general assembly is well-organized. Very well, in fact. Speaking 
turns, rules, decisions made by consensus, gender diversity-you can 
sense well-established activist practices and habits. The members of the 
assembly seem quite comfortable with this way of functioning: they shake 
hands to applaud silently and cross their arms to signify "not happy." 
It's a far cry from the chaos of the Yellow Vest assemblies... And I 
sincerely wonder whether this is good news or bad... Because while we 
can only applaud the fact that self-managed activist practices are being 
established and persisting from one social movement to the next, I can't 
help but think that, as Chimène Badi sang, here we're a bit... "among 
ourselves."

It must be said that the organizers decided to clean house. This was 
evident in one of the first interventions, that of the working group 
(referred to as "WG," and given the number of WGs there are, it's true 
that saying WG saves time) "Telegram channel." We learned that 
interventions deemed by the rapporteur as "unfriendly, or even very 
unfriendly," and we understood from the outset that these were racist 
and discriminatory remarks, were not tolerated in the group, and that 
after a "reminder of the rules," those who made such remarks were banned 
from the group. Another organizer added that at the beginning there were 
even monarchists. Laughter rippled through the crowd, a shared 
understanding. We all know what we're talking about.

Of course, racist, sexist, homophobic, and other such arguments must be 
addressed in general assemblies. But a strategic question remains: by 
banning their authors and excluding them from the movement, we will 
indeed reduce hate speech... but not necessarily the ideas themselves.
Clearly, this preparatory general assembly for September 10th is a far 
cry from the sociology of the Yellow Vests. And I struggle to see how my 
old roundabout buddies could find their place here. Because it's taking 
a long time before we even get to the "Actions" section.

There's the communications working group, the media relations working 
group, the anti-repression working group, the union relations working 
group, the group for group childcare for working parents, the 
information working group (no, it's not the same as communications), the 
vegetarian cafeteria working group, the stress management working group 
for demonstrations, and even the (planned) working group for integrating 
children into general assemblies so they aren't excluded from democracy. 
Of course I agree with all of that. So much so that it makes me a little 
worried about the future of the movement. And about its scaling up. 
Because how could people who don't agree with all of that initially find 
themselves in this general assembly? How could they feel like they 
belong? Wouldn't the Gérards, the Nanous, and the Yellow Vests of 
yesteryear have been immediately banned from the general assembly the 
first time they chanted a little "Macron, Macron, we'll fuck you!"? And 
would that have been a good thing?

To avoid repeating the same mistake as six years ago, I wonder if we 
aren't making another, symmetrical, and perhaps even more serious one. 
Because contrary to what one might have heard in the procession of the 
impressive demonstration on the 10th, no, unfortunately, we are not all 
antifascists, far from it... And if we want to convince National Rally 
voters that it is on issues of class, and not race, that we must fight 
to abolish privileges, it's not certain that we should ban them from 
general assemblies, nor do we want ideologically pure demonstrations, 
speeches, or movements... Unless we believe, once again, that we will 
carry out the revolution "among ourselves"...

Original text published in Le Postillon (Grenoble)

Counterfire
- Regarding the September 10th disaster
The "Block Everything" movement of September 10, 2025, as expected, was 
nothing more than a mediocre revival of the 2023 movement against 
pension reform, but on fast-forward. The difference lies in an even more 
perfect organizational structure, taking charge of every aspect of the 
movement before it even began. Aside from that, it's the same old story: 
large crowds at demonstrations in cities, spectacular actions with 
little support and little impact, organizational meetings held by 
activists, virtually no General Assemblies in workplaces, small, 
isolated strikes here and there without any real power dynamic, and 
dates ticking by according to a political and union calendar... Yet the 
calls to mobilize had initially emerged far from these well-known 
structures. They were primarily opposed to Bayrou's highly unpopular 
austerity plan announced on July 15. This plan simply envisioned an 
upward redistribution of wealth by drastically cutting the social 
welfare budget to finance investments in the economy and defense. In 
other words, a direct attack on the material living conditions of all 
the exploited. But the mobilization on the 10th failed to produce any 
real struggle on this front; on the contrary, what we witnessed was the 
evaporation of social anger into the meanders of a powerless left-wing 
mobilization. We make this bitter observation precisely because this 
date was the only promising prospect at the time, and we feel it is 
necessary to draw a critical conclusion.
After this debacle, the future looks bleak. How long before a new 
movement can emerge if the latest attempts at struggle resemble a 
resounding defeat?

THE CURRENT SITUATION

With the stagnation of the global economy, austerity is the norm. Around 
the world, social compromises based on growth and a degree of wealth 
redistribution are no longer on the agenda. Gradually deprived of the 
means to maintain the status quo, states are experiencing crises in 
which the legitimacy of their political leaders is being questioned. 
Conversely, the resistance of the proletariat seems weakened and 
disoriented by the lack of prospects both within individual countries 
and internationally. The rejection, even violent rejection, of 
governments is most often galvanized around the idea of the "people" 
betrayed by their elites, who have sold out to foreign capital. This is 
a godsend for chauvinists of all stripes at a time when, in all the 
major powers, a segment of the bourgeoisie is itself questioning the 
current framework of globalization. Everyone, even the USA, is voicing 
its criticism of a globalized system that stifles the interests of its 
people or nation. It is on the superficial compromise of "national 
interest" that the ruling classes attempt to rebuild their "popular" 
legitimacy. Their nationalist policies seek to harness the discontent of 
a population facing downward mobility to serve the interests of their 
bourgeoisie in the global market, promising the crumbs of a more 
advantageous division of the world.
We see the implementation, on the one hand, of domestic policies aimed 
at redistributing the state budget from social programs to the military 
and its auxiliaries, and at acquiring the repressive capabilities 
necessary to accompany such a shift; and on the other hand, of 
increasingly confrontational foreign policies. Both converge on the same 
vanishing point: a future global conflict, the harbingers of which we 
are already witnessing. The machinery is in motion. The seeds of discord 
exist: they take the form of sporadic, largely spontaneous, violent 
uprisings, quickly suppressed. It will take more than seeds of discord 
to derail the capitalist war machine.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE PROLETARIAT IN ALL OF THIS?

The entire history of radical critical thought has been grounded in real 
struggles which, through their dynamic confrontations, posed the 
questions that open up possibilities for collective emancipation. Today, 
the disconnect between the narrow framework of ideology and the ability 
to understand our condition under the dictatorship of capital is only 
growing. The categories we use no longer allow us to reflect the 
materiality of things. In 50 years, while capitalism has been in a 
perpetual crisis that continues to escalate and affects billions of 
people daily, it would seem that the capacity to objectively interpret 
what is happening, to formulate a systemic critique based on the two 
central dynamics of the capitalist mode of production-accumulation and 
exploitation-has evaporated.
Our premise being that ideas are born from materiality and not from 
limbo, for the concept of social revolution to exist, it must be based 
on actions that are conceived and communicate with one another. There 
must be struggles, and these struggles must be echoed and nourished by 
other struggles, other issues, and other lived experiences. These 
struggles must reach such intensity within the class conflict that the 
question of the proletariat's self-organization of social life arises. 
This requires a struggle of sufficient magnitude, one that goes far 
enough in confrontation and duration to address the issues of daily 
life, production, and reproduction down to their roots, so that we can 
tackle the causes of our misfortunes and not just their consequences. 
This presupposes a break with the existing order, but also the existence 
of a revolutionary perspective to envision the overcoming of capitalism.

For nearly ten years, large-scale movements of anger that disrupt 
capitalist normalcy have only emerged where the constraints of left-wing 
ideology and those tasked with imposing it are absent. The Yellow Vest 
movement arose in a territory not controlled by these left-wing groups, 
geographically, socially, or politically. Within the Yellow Vests, all 
politics in the traditional sense (representation, demands) was more or 
less swept aside to focus on immediate material interests. This 
struggle, despite its limitations, made a lasting impression through its 
political autonomy and refusal to be co-opted, its avoidance of the 
identity trap, the abundance of its initiatives, and the determination 
and effectiveness of its attacks. It was the long, collective process 
within the struggle that allowed for a proletarian break with everything 
previously known about social movements. Similarly, the riots for Nahel, 
which lasted only a few days, reveal the absence, among the agitated 
segments of the proletariat, of any reference to "left-wing" thought.
Naturally, after a while, the left tries to infiltrate the movement in 
an organized manner, steering it back into its old ways. The more 
successful it becomes, the more the movement withers. The same 
administrators who tried to co-opt the Yellow Vest movement with their 
Assembly of Assemblies, their attempts to present themselves as 
spokespeople and enlightened commentators for the rioters, are the ones 
who led the mobilization on the 10th. Even if their attempts fail, they 
still retain considerable disruptive power by preempting all spaces and 
bogging down any possible reflection in their ideological mess.

The 2023 movement against pension reform and the current non-event of 
the 10th demonstrate the urgent need for this tendency to reorganize in 
an ecumenical effort against what the Yellow Vest movement was and to 
impose a staggering retreat on the struggles after 2019. A fine piece of 
undermining: just a few years later, it's almost as if the Yellow Vests 
never existed. At most, a distorted memory remains, retaining only the 
Citizens' Initiative Referendum (RIC). While digesting what happened, in 
2023 and 2025 the left returns to its roots: taking the lead of a 
movement, even a virtual one, as early as possible to stifle anything 
that might overflow, even at the risk of causing the movement's total 
paralysis. The icing on the cake is that it is now by formally imitating 
certain grassroots actions and organizational practices that left-wing 
managers are monopolizing the space and regaining control of the movement.

THE MOBILIZATION

The inner workings of the mobilization:
Weeks before the September 10th date, launched online by right-wing 
sovereigntists, this initiative was widely taken up on social media and 
subsequently disseminated. The slogans that emerged and consolidated the 
hodgepodge of proposals primarily reflected this widespread confusion: 
boycotting large retailers, stopping credit card payments in favor of 
cash (the problem being that banks profit from merchants, not that 
merchants profit from consumers), fighting the cosmopolitan oligarchy... 
Themes that reek of the far right [2]and that continue to take root in 
the course of discussions. As early as August, in the name of a movement 
that did not yet exist, general assemblies to organize against the 
Bayrou austerity plan sprang up all over France. The far left (from 
Trotskyists to far-left sympathizers [3]), in a new effort at 
"compromise," seized control of this nascent collective unrest. Every 
corner of freedom, every possibility, every desire to organize that 
inevitably arises when a movement begins, was marked out, controlled, 
stifled, and marketed in advance. We had never before seen a movement 
die before it even had a chance to be born. And at the hands of those 
who most ardently desired its arrival. Or rather, at the hands of those 
who only aspired to lead a sham movement rather than work towards the 
development of a genuine social struggle!
We clearly had neither the balance of power nor collective resolve. On 
the first day of mobilization, any more radical form of action or 
occupation was prevented by an insane number of police officers. The 
state, having the means to repress at a much higher level than before 
2016, did not hesitate to use them.

The genesis of this mobilization is symptomatic of a dematerialized 
relationship to the struggle. It was born in the obscure corners of the 
internet: a website, a Telegram group with a few hundred members. As the 
information spread throughout the country, in discussions at bars, at 
work, and on activist discussion forums, it ignited the newsrooms of 
newspapers, which made a meal of it throughout the summer. Mailing lists 
quickly filled with newcomers, and emboldened by this phenomenon, a few 
people took charge of relaying the mobilization at the local level and 
attempted to organize it. Without hesitation, grassroots activists 
seized the opportunity to set up inter-activist ecumenical meetings, 
which they dubbed General Assemblies (GAs), and proposed the 
organizational form and content they were familiar with. These meetings 
were public and open to all, allowing working-class people to attend, 
though they remained a small minority. Hundreds of large meetings then 
take place, led by the same people found in labor movements, during 
election campaigns, or at partisan mobilizations like feminist 
happenings or Earth Uprising events: in short, all those who consider 
themselves the enlightened vanguard. This is a month before September 
10th, and public meetings are held every week to build momentum. Unions 
and political parties take positions for or against, the potential for a 
major upheaval is circulating everywhere, the delusion seems collective, 
and everyone seems to believe in it. This includes the highest levels of 
government, where they take the opportunity to reshuffle the cabinet and 
reshuffle the political agenda related to the budget vote.

To make this rapidly spreading organizational model understandable, a 
major propaganda effort was undertaken, both by flooding social media 
with ready-made narratives via influencers and through the spontaneous 
engagement of volunteers from various associations who recited their 
program like parrots. Activists gesticulated wildly to enforce their 
protocols by occupying key positions in the mobilization as early as 
possible, pre-organizing activities, and distributing tasks. Discussions 
were structured in general assemblies and on Signal by administrators 
whose mission was to prevent any conflict or questioning of the plan 
being developed. General assemblies of 40 to 300 people convinced 
themselves that they represented a movement that hadn't even begun, and 
then a movement of hundreds of thousands of people who, in reality, 
remained largely absent from these spaces. For left-wing activists, it's 
all about preparing everything in advance by offering various services: 
protest kitchens, childcare, legal training, pre-planned actions... a 
veritable little cooperative where nothing is likely to get out of hand! 
This is the best way to sterilize a movement, to nip it in the bud, to 
prevent anything from happening outside of what they already control. 
It's mainly about reproducing what's done habitually in certain circles 
(political, associative, festive), believing that the world is limited 
to their activist bubble. Surely this is a symptom of the fact that in a 
world that increasingly separates people and confines us to bubbles, 
it's possible to believe that we can fight without engaging with other 
realities. Which is terribly sad.

This logic blends several conceptions of struggle: that of a task to be 
accomplished (with manpower and objectives), and the idea that politics 
has become a commodity like any other, where it's simply a matter of 
carefully targeting the panel of potential consumers. As for breaking 
with the daily grind of exploitation and consumption that we are reduced 
to enduring, come back another day!

Racketeering and Match Point:
This managerial tendency, which already existed but was confined to 
spaces like labor movements, takes over completely here and clearly 
prevents initiatives from flourishing. These methods are the only ones 
offered because it seems difficult to imagine anything else when the 
norm that has become established in certain spheres is popular 
education, alternative approaches, representative democracy, and 
individual empowerment. Therefore, one must take turns speaking and 
making gestures with one's arms, only talking about prescribed topics 
and in the appropriate manner, according to criteria defined by 
political trends that wish "another capitalism to be possible." 
Thousands of participants thus attempt to evangelize those who want to 
take action, while simultaneously spitting on anyone who doesn't think 
within their narrow frameworks.

On the far left, activists seem to be infected by the disease of our 
time: the obsession with being at the center of everything. These new 
forms of collectives, which call themselves "autonomous" because they 
are less superficially structured than the Marxist-Leninist parties of 
the last century, readily adopt the methods of action and turns of 
phrase of the Autonomia movement to give a radical veneer to their 
social-democratic content. According to their conception, other people 
are drawn to join "their movement," of which they are supposedly the 
center of gravity. There's nothing new in the nightmarish Leninist 
vision that sees people in struggle as mere cannon fodder to be used to 
satisfy the delusions of a few rearguard strategists. As for 
understanding what tactics these tacticians employ and for what purpose, 
that remains profoundly obscure. The real objectives, developed behind a 
few superficial mantras, are never clearly expressed in assemblies or 
committees. Why deny the class struggle and refuse to talk about 
exploitation? Why fetishize hollow concepts like complementary tactics 
and convergent struggles? Why forge alliances? No one seems surprised 
anymore that political problems are systematically reduced to logistical 
issues that expert committees (or "petals") will humbly resolve. This 
camp, which brings together all those who claim to be ready to put 
themselves on the line for the revolution, is in reality committed body 
and soul to reformism. What is this, a tendency that calls itself 
"autonomous," doesn't care about production, is keen to save small 
businesses, defends democracy and the left...?
We must therefore consider the current far left for the role of useful 
idiot it has chosen to play; which makes it nothing more than a stepping 
stone (if not a doormat) for the capitalist left.

In this configuration, both ideological and material, those who want 
something other than consolidating left-wing capitalism find themselves 
caught in this web and end up leaving, having no place in these spaces.

At the General Assembly, we witnessed hours and hours of debate about 
the format of the debates, the form of the blockades, the "communication 
strategy," what outraged people, and who did or did not belong in the 
movement. On top of that, every political faction came to try and sell 
its wares, from the struggle to "liberate Palestine," save the planet, 
promote feminism, and engage in antifascism-the list goes on. From 
political parties and small groups to small business owners, everyone 
came to peddle their agenda, trying to recruit a few random people into 
their group, their canteen, their drum band, their local headquarters, 
or their Saturday demonstration. The desperate organizers are forced to 
cobble together a crude "convergence of struggles" that is a complete 
flop. The conclusion is bitter: everyone seems utterly lost, and the 
"strategists of the struggle" are just as clueless as anyone else.
What seems absurd for a movement against austerity is that no force that 
simply defends its interests has managed to establish itself outside the 
hegemony of managers, even though part of the mobilization on September 
10th consisted of many proles who envisioned much more than 
demonstrations resembling a leisurely stroll or blockades that barely 
block anything.

Social Democracy 2.0
Taking a step back, this botched mobilization is just another iteration 
of social democracy, whose base we've already seen mobilize [4]. A 
constellation of parties, newspapers, influencers, associations, and 
libertarians, all united around left-wing parties, forms a nebulous, 
completely interconnected, and interwoven network at the local level. 
Activists, from local elected officials to ordinary citizens, all follow 
the Mélenchonist current, adopting the same talking points disseminated 
everywhere, the same demands, and the same strategies. This is the 
"citizens' revolution," a pointless charade where reformists and 
radicals pat each other on the back while looking in the same direction: 
the defeat of the social struggle. Here, there is absolutely no critique 
of the foundations of capitalism: exploitation, the state, classes, 
market relations... the narrow framework within which a struggle must 
operate is reshaped, without conflict, without enemies, without class 
interests. A sanitized vision of reality that doesn't even consider 
power dynamics and the systems in which they operate. Elections are 
revolution, allying with reformists is gaining power, staging a 
barricade that will last ten minutes is blocking the economy, formalism 
is organization, replicating the form of student general assemblies is 
self-organization... The necessary analysis of the limits of each 
movement and the contradictions that arise in struggles when confronted 
with reality is supplanted by a Newspeak of political communication. And 
so words lose all meaning, the lexicon that could allow us to think 
about revolution becomes unusable. Changing the world is no longer 
simply a matter of democratically demonstrating our opposition to its 
excesses, without struggle or conflict. A touch of education would allow 
us to gain the support of the greatest number, combined with a few 
symbolic actions to convince the others.

You may not know it yet, but simply declaring a symbolic shutdown of the 
economy would be enough to proclaim that it had been accomplished, or 
declaring the end of government and capitalism would cause them to 
collapse. Simple, basic! No police, no army, no bourgeoisie, no one who 
would have an interest in maintaining the status quo... Welcome to a 
virtual world where class struggle no longer exists and where it would 
no longer be possible to analyze society in terms of social relations. 
We would be faced with a world divided between good and evil, where the 
awakened are those who have become aware (touched by some unknown 
grace), unlike the mass of the asleep who drift more or less willingly, 
lost in the meanders of a society adrift, where dark powers operate. It 
is striking to note that this moralistic and ethereal conception of the 
world is shared on both sides of the broad political spectrum with 
considerable freedom of interpretation.

Moreover, one might be surprised by the homogeneity of thought and 
practices in this mobilization, since the shared interest that drives it 
is not the expression of a homogeneous group, nor even of a distinct 
class. The "left-wing people," invested with the mission of converting 
the working class to its cause, belong to diverse social positions and 
statuses, reflecting the myriad of demands that have been voiced in a 
chaotic fashion. To describe the complexity of what is activating the 
social forces in struggle today, given the limitations of the concepts 
of "  managerial class  ," "  middle class  ," and "  petty bourgeoisie 
" in describing reality, we prefer the broader and more ambiguous term " 
 managerial and supervisory workers  ." This term encompasses all those 
involved in the management of society and its smooth functioning. But a 
teaching assistant does not have the same status as a university 
professor, a theater director is not simply a freelance worker, any more 
than a nurse is on equal footing with a surgeon. This is therefore not a 
socially homogeneous category; it is made up of precarious proletarians, 
civil servants (both high-ranking and low-ranking), and members of the 
cultural petty bourgeoisie. These workers are primarily involved in 
cultural production and social management; their work is first and 
foremost a service to the state and a means of maintaining social order 
(quite far removed from market profitability, even if it can 
exceptionally take the form of commodities). They have a vested interest 
in defending these services and do not criticize either the state or 
this production. The common denominator among these people with their 
rather different statuses is a fetish for the state as a regulator, 
which generously distributes the crumbs of GDP and is supposed to 
guarantee the famous social benefits and public services. The state is 
thus considered not only as a neutral and "natural" institution, but 
also as the essential employer for their economic survival, since most 
of them depend on it directly. Added to this is the defense of the 
software provided with this role: a better distribution of wealth and 
the moral condemnation of big capitalists (and racists, sexists, 
polluters and all those who are not in "the camp of good") [5].

Social-democratic conceptions (which were already quite rotten to begin 
with) have gradually degenerated into a multifaceted form of civic 
engagement whose logic contributes to strengthening the state and its 
intermediary institutions, and which constantly seeks, by any means 
necessary, to generate democratic legitimacy so that its political 
existence is recognized. The social problem, as it is presented, is that 
the majority of people are poorly represented in decision-making bodies 
and that, consequently, wealth is simply unfairly redistributed. 
Therefore, it would suffice to legislate, or even (for the more 
"radical" among them) to propose a new constitution for everything to be 
resolved. The political challenge is no longer to abolish exploitation 
or social classes, but to create mediation bodies to find consensual 
solutions. Capitalism is then not presented as a mode of production, a 
historically determined social relationship that organizes the whole of 
society, but as the only possible system, corrupted by a handful of 
profiteers.

In 1905, when the idea of socialism and the debates surrounding it still 
existed, Comrade Jan Waclav Makhaiski had already identified the problem 
emerging under the conditions of the time. His argument in * The 
Socialism of the Intellectuals* resonates with current dynamics.
"Scientific socialism justifies the right of intellectual workers [6]to 
a higher income. But this higher income is nothing more than a share of 
the surplus value created by manual labor. The worker thus pays not only 
for the capitalist's profit, but also for the high wages of the 
engineer, the manager, the civil servant, and all educated specialists. 
Socialism, by abolishing the profit of the private capitalist, merely 
centralizes this surplus value for the benefit of the new class of 
salaried intellectuals." He adds: "Socialism thus appears as the social 
movement of the educated working class, the brain workers who fight for 
their own class domination, for a social organization where they will 
hold a monopoly on the direction of production and the distribution of 
wealth, thanks to their monopoly on education."

The International Manager

These trends regularly take the lead in interclass movements worldwide. 
They follow categorical logics, expressed through various contradictory 
and competing currents, but ultimately aiming to secure or maintain a 
privileged position for all or part of the management/supervisory 
workforce. At the international level, the dynamics can differ: these 
categories may be becoming increasingly precarious in the old capitalist 
centers and, conversely, rising in emerging poles. The fragility of 
their position in the class struggle pushes them to act to reform 
capitalism (ranging from minor measures to more or less absurd utopias, 
the product of alliances of convenience). To this end, the most 
audacious elements do not rule out resorting to so-called "radical" 
means; violence, for example, may be a tool when the need arises [7]. 
Form does not determine substance. Political actors with any degree of 
consistency know how to use all available means and adapt to situations.
Returning to the "events" of September 10th, it must be noted that the 
collective inertia generated by this kind of circus marks a regression 
of almost 15 years in the class struggle. We are returning to an 
imaginary steeped both in the echoes of Los Indignados (namely, the most 
outlandish movement Spain has ever seen, a movement that performed civil 
disobedience in the spring of 2011 in a non-dialogue with the Arab 
Spring) and in the specter of Nuit Debout (François Ruffin's populist 
attempt to liquidate the movement against the 2016 labor law by 
transforming central squares into a kind of hippie betting shop). A 
civic, pacifist, and democratic vision, bordering on the absurd, 
continues to spread, carried by certain social strata who believe they 
still have something to salvage in the capitalist dystopia. This 
self-limiting form of mobilization, mimicking Nuit Debout and the 
Indignados , prioritizes democratic form over social content and 
collective action, and the epicenter of the (non)struggle takes the form 
of endless bureaucratic general assemblies. The outcome is always the 
same: to strengthen an electoral party that reaps what it can from the 
anger, like Podemos in Spain or Syriza in Greece. The challenge for 
these pseudo-reformists and aspiring managers of every stripe is indeed 
to corner the movements with fragmented and truncated demands (throw the 
bums out, anti-corruption, democracy, etc.). The struggles thus find 
themselves caught in a vice between repression and the control exerted 
by the managers who call for calm.

BREAKS AND TRANSCENDENCE: WHAT INTERESTS US IN WRESTLING

If all spaces are locked down before people even meet, self-organization 
becomes virtually impossible. How can we exchange ideas, get to know 
each other, and function as a group of thousands when the movement isn't 
designed to last but merely to produce a few fleeting "stunts," when 
everything is pre-planned without any spontaneity or continuity? When 
it's not about getting involved but simply following pre-packaged 
proposals like a good consumer? How can we find the time to develop the 
struggle over time, to try new actions, to discuss them, to fail, to try 
something else? A movement that establishes an ideological framework and 
practices without ever addressing the question of power dynamics, that 
doesn't test itself in anything, in any conflict, that disregards the 
debates and questions that arise within its ranks and proposes the 
reform of the methods of exploitation as its sole horizon, cannot 
experience any real growth or advancement within itself. without a 
profound break in thought, in modes of operation and therefore in actions.

Some obvious points. A struggle is first and foremost a dynamic conflict 
that unites people affected by a common problem. It develops from the 
awareness of opposing interests. It therefore attempts to establish a 
balance of power within this framework. It is a dynamic, meaning that it 
evolves, that it raises questions that lead to a new situation, from 
which new problems emerge. To engage in a struggle is first and foremost 
to break free from passivity and thus take initiative. For all those 
involved, it is about investing themselves, putting themselves on the 
line, testing themselves. The more people take control of the terms of 
the confrontation, the stronger the struggle becomes. Conversely, 
delegation reinforces passivity and prevents the expansion and deepening 
of the struggle. It leads to stagnation and the beginning of the end. On 
the contrary, to fight is precisely to break free from the forms of 
management of capitalism, therefore from politics (representatives, 
demands, programs, alliances, electoralism, negotiations).

For us, a struggle begins with the situation as it truly is, not merely 
with fantasies constructed within an ideology. It raises problems that 
become questions to be solved collectively. This attempt at 
clarification creates a shared understanding that translates into action 
and strives to change reality.

These transformations cannot be defined in advance; they constitute 
ruptures with normality. They develop in the course of the struggle and 
produce unforeseen results. It is through questioning and the 
construction of a balance of power that the objectives of a movement are 
built and expanded. These ruptures lead to a transcendence of existing 
conditions, stemming from a rejection of the material situation. The 
questioning may be partial at first, but it leads to a more 
comprehensive inquiry and the possibility of a radical critique of 
everything that shapes society.

Conversely, defending existing terms prevents breaches from emerging. 
These two tendencies-the evolution of goals within the struggle and the 
defense of the interests of pre-existing categories-are themselves 
opposed within the confrontation. And it is the clash between these two 
poles that makes each struggle, above all, a struggle within a struggle. 
This dynamic transforms the material conditions, behaviors, and 
psychology of those who experience it, and therefore their relationships 
(with each other, with enemies, with money, with themselves, with work, 
with hierarchy, etc.). It modifies, to varying degrees, the framework 
within which it unfolds; the street is no longer the street as we know 
it, the company is no longer entirely the company, the employee is no 
longer employed by anyone. It is when struggles develop and deepen that 
these upheavals of normality can occur.

What interests communists and revolutionaries is the degree to which 
these fissures deepen, the non-reproduction of capitalist relations. It 
is that private property be thrown into the fire, that market relations 
vanish, that the exploiters be hanged from lampposts with the entrails 
of the last bureaucrats, that the State perish definitively.

IN CONCLUSION

It is disheartening to see that the fantasies of the mainstream left 
continue to stifle the potential of movements, to the detriment of 
proletarian interests, and therefore against building momentum toward 
revolution.
This is all the more true since, as soon as the parenthesis of the 10th 
is closed, institutional politics manages to reoccupy the entire 
political space. We are led on and kept in suspense with the farcical 
antics of parliament and the government-dissolutions, impeachments, 
resignations, and the cycle begins again. This circus is meant to 
capture attention-as if anything essential were at stake-and distract 
from the material problems that will continue to arise regardless of the 
political personnel in power. Not to mention that all political parties 
are already preparing for the next elections with the 2027 presidential 
elections on the horizon and once again the now all-too-familiar 
democratic blackmail of "blocking the far right" and its injunction to 
once again line up in battle order behind the left and abandon all 
criticism, all prospect of rupture, in the name of the lesser evil.

It's a safe bet that by 2027, all the political and union forces on the 
left will be mobilizing around this single objective, with the active 
support of their far-left allies, perhaps even before, for the 2026 
municipal elections. They'll do everything they can to keep us in limbo 
until the sacrosanct universal suffrage is decided, and to avoid any 
disruption to their campaign. As long as this charade continues, it 
seems unlikely that any real, large-scale struggles will emerge.

However, the failures of the movement against the 2023 pension reform 
and the aborted attempt of September 2025 do not mean that resistance 
can no longer crystallize and ignite into large-scale struggles. There 
is no shortage of reasons for this, and a climate of simmering 
discontent exists against unpaid work, the high cost of living, and the 
new warmongering frenzy of states. These recent setbacks rather 
indicate, on the one hand, that the left is losing its capacity to 
mobilize and act as a driving force for movements, and on the other 
hand, that struggles can only emerge outside the organizational and 
ideological frameworks of the left.

Ultimately, what would be desirable is not for the "left-wing people" to 
be rallied by proletarians who do not share its "vision," but for these 
proletarians to transcend all of that; and for those who feel out of 
step with what the left produces (control, disarmament, manipulation) to 
meet with their angry peers and let their rage be expressed. The 
majority of those who do not join the mobilization are not fooled by 
what the movement's organizers are proposing, namely: nothing. Their 
open contempt for the capitalist left is, in this instance, simply 
common sense. However, no new perspectives emerge, no developed critique 
arises, nor do autonomous practices develop.
Social-democratic activists, by organizing and dominating all 
organizational meetings, particularly those concerning logistics, manage 
to impose their ideology and methods. The "Block Everything" movement is 
the best demonstration of what a movement should be according to the 
postmodern vision: an overlay of identities where everyone defends their 
own interests from a militant position. A static mobilization from which 
neither common ground nor transcendence emerges, culminating in a 
spectacular failure. By starting with the categorical divisions 
[8]within capitalism and then glorifying them, they sweep the social 
question under the rug, replacing it with an abstract mystique. As a 
result, the history of social conflicts is falsified or annihilated. By 
mimicking existing practices, they ultimately render them meaningless. 
In this impoverishment, the very concepts of collective struggle, the 
construction of power relations, and social antagonism tend to disappear.

Even if explosive and spontaneous movements emerge, once defeated they 
leave few traces. Having a communist or revolutionary perspective is 
necessary to escape this impasse in which we are all trapped. It is a 
matter of producing a language (actions, images, texts) that can allow 
us to break free from narrow and restrictive frameworks of thought. Let 
our imagination and practices change; let us escape the current 
confinement where every question raised remains relegated to a purely 
practical (even managerial) approach to problems that are increasingly 
meaningless. Only autonomous initiatives that disregard the codes of 
political activists, the empty rhetoric, the pre-planned but ineffective 
spectacular actions, the obligatory consensus, and the ready-made 
thinking of the left, can develop a struggle that expands and overflows. 
For those who reject the world we live in certainly have more in common 
with each other than with politicians of any stripe.

It must be admitted: communist or revolutionary positions have 
practically disappeared as a force within the struggles. We are aware 
that without the collective development of communist positions with the 
clear objective of abolishing capitalism, nothing but semblances of 
struggle will be possible. This implies a radical, uncompromised 
critique, transcending divisions within the proletariat, implementing 
practices in this direction, and defending genuine self-organization 
among those who struggle. It is in this that our critique of the current 
period, which aims to be clear-sighted, hopes to contribute. We aspire 
to revive these perspectives of destroying capitalism and to meet with 
interested comrades who share these questions and the positions we 
defend, in order to discuss them, broaden them, and bring them into 
being within the dynamics of the struggle.

November 2025
To contact us: autonomyvscontrefeu :

Original text on Loukanikos (Rennes) which offers it in the form of a 
brochure or pdf.

In addition to the analyses presented in this last text on "citizenship" 
and "social democracy", let us recall the existence of two special 
issues of Courant Alternatif on these themes:

THE CITIZEN SCAM
Today, we're bombarded with the word "citizen" for everything from 
recycling to dog poop, not to mention all the standards of individual 
behavior. We must participate, within very specific frameworks, in 
society as it is, so that it doesn't go too far astray! Forget the ideas 
of Revolution and communist society. Now it's all about 
participation/management, integration/assimilation, and controlling 
excesses... all forms of domination!
Download it from the website here.

THE MYTH OF THE LEFT, A CENTURY OF SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC ILLUSIONS
"To the best of its ability, this special issue attempts to highlight 
how the social-democratic illusion and the myth of a left-wing camp 
remain the best weapon of the counter-revolution. This is in order to 
show the political and social forces working to overthrow this ignoble 
system the urgent need to break with all reformist aspirations that 
contribute to maintaining and reproducing capitalist barbarity."
Download it from the website here

Frans Masereel Lottery
Notes
[1] Telegram is an application and instant messaging service

[2] On the other hand, we are witnessing the monstrous growth of a 
theoretical quagmire fueled by the resurgence of social democracy. This 
produces an imaginary and discourses that resonate with populist 
tactics, sometimes not far removed from those of the far right: there is 
no democracy because a handful of parasitic ultra-riches rule the world. 
The subject mobilized to oppose this parasitic segment of capital is the 
people, an interclass subject that lumps together the exploited and the 
exploiters, and whose existence culminates in patriotism, the liberation 
of the nation and its productive forces.

[3] We call "toto-LFIstes" a whole constellation of groups and 
individuals who claim to be part of the Autonomous Movement, retaining 
only practices without content, transforming it into militant folklore 
and posing as the left of the left.

[4] Historical social democracy, in all its forms, aimed to achieve the 
socialization of the means of production and, ultimately, perhaps even 
communism. Since the doctrine was a transitional phase, more or less 
extended over time, a succession of reforms supported by a balance of 
power within society would lead to socialism. From this proposition 
stemmed the assumption of leadership of the class struggle by large, 
unified organizations. For socialist activists of the time, building a 
unified organization within the class, capable of leading the struggle, 
was of paramount importance. Whether the seizure of power was 
institutional or violent, the underlying conceptual framework remained 
the same.
Despite countless compromises arising from the very logic of this 
approach, the "objective," shared more broadly than within these 
currents, remained alive in the collective imagination. The idea of 
social transformation persisted, and it was around this objective that 
strategies, oppositions, ruptures, and attempts to transcend it all took 
place.
The shift in the balance of power following successive defeats in the 
struggles of the proletariat has led to the overwhelming dominance of 
capitalist ideology. Gradually, the prospect of social revolution has 
become a chimera, a utopia.
The structures that once framed these struggles, directing them along 
the lines of a "realistic strategy" toward a future that promises a 
rather bleak and dreary future, have managed to adapt to defeat, salvage 
what they can, and maintain themselves thanks to what remained: their 
capacity to control the proletariat. And they have evolved into the role 
of managing the day-to-day operations of exploitation, in a world whose 
only horizon is the capitalist mode of production.

[5] A large part of the left has embraced its resolutely confusionist 
stance for decades and has unabashedly championed the defense of the 
nation, race, and identity. One wonders when a segment of the left and 
far left will finally openly join the reactionary camp? Not that the 
adage "extremely close" doesn't contain any truth, but rather because 
certain left-wing political currents have gradually decided to theorize 
in their own way and defend values and positions that contribute to 
confusionism and oppose emancipation.

[6] The intellectual's project is to use the State and planning to 
consolidate their domination, to defend their position, and above all, 
to avoid falling to the level of the destitute. The function of 
managers, technicians, and bureaucrats is to transform knowledge into an 
instrument of exploitation. Their role is crucial in capitalist society: 
to guarantee the hegemony of the dominant class by organizing 
production, culture, and consent to this system. Bureaucracy is not a 
mere accident that arises by chance, a small, bothersome outgrowth, but 
rather a structuring element of class domination in modern society. The 
managers of Capital-precarious workers, civil servants, petty 
bourgeois-are not necessarily aware of their harmful role in this 
management: doing the work for the established bourgeoisie and gently 
stifling any proletarian dynamism, when it exists, with sticky notes.

[7] We see this today in the recent movements-dubbed "Gen Z" by 
commentators-that have shaken Nepal, Madagascar, Serbia, and Morocco 
(the Indonesian case being different). Reformist/managerial tendencies 
have been able to position themselves as interlocutors with real power: 
the State, which unites bourgeois interests (and which is too often 
confused with the Executive embodied by one government or another). And 
to forge (or at least attempt to forge) new compromises from which they 
benefit by negotiating their ability to channel the force of the 
proletarian outbursts of anger, which themselves start not from 
idealistic postulates but from the realities of the facts (inflation, 
shortages, etc.).

[8] By categorical we mean corporatisms, the different defenses of 
hierarchical statuses in production, as well as identity issues as a 
coalition of phantasmagorical "Selves", thought as a homogeneous 
category, the different identity boxes (race, gender, sexual 
orientation) which would form the intersectional puzzle defining 
individuals in their relationship to the world.

http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4590
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en