Analyse the relationship between the organisations and interests of students and workers in 1968.

University Degree Education and Teaching

Answer with reference to at least two West-European countries.

“1968 is always remembered as a historic year”, a year characterized by “the wide geographical spread of student activism affecting Japan and the Iron Curtain countries as well as the West”. 1968 is renowned to be a period of great turmoil and upheaval in which the traditional political and social structures were fiercely questioned. In certain countries, such as France and Italy, the foremost agitators at the time were not only students, but also workers: a curious bond developed between the two movements, shaping differently in each country. In analysing this student-worker relationship it will be necessary to consider events that occurred also after 1968 because in Italy the duration of the protest movement extended itself past that ‘historic year’: “From early in 1968 there were links between Italian workers’ strikes and student activism, though this never brought the paralysis which briefly affected France. On the other hand, Italian industrial militancy gathered strength right through 1969, creating what was dubbed ‘the hot autumn’ (l’autunno caldo) and in effect eclipsing student activism”. The intensity and duration of the demonstrations varied from country to country; these factors clearly conditioned the relationship between workers and students, and undoubtedly had an effect on what would be the outcome of the protest. Where student-worker unity was present, namely in France and Italy, the relationship was fired mainly by the students’ desire to collaborate and identify themselves with the workers, and the fact that, even though the two groups didn’t necessarily share the same interests, they shared the same enemy: ‘the system’. In both countries, the process was similar, initially the workers gave strength to the students’ movement, carrying out strikes and manifestations, but eventually the workers’ movement tended to outdo the students putting an end to the relationship between them. In Germany, on the other hand, there was no relationship whatsoever between students and workers, besides “German students had had to face the wrath of workers”. The nature of the student-worker relationship, or in the case of Germany, the lack of a relationship, was clearly a consequence of the particular political, social and economical atmosphere in each nation at that time, and nonetheless the diverse traditions that each country harbours.

“In Italy, the interaction and joint action between students and workers in 1968-9 reached levels unique in Western Europe”. The student-worker relationship was one of co-operation and mutual support based on a revival of Marxist thinking and the works of the young operaisti, who provided “an ideological background in which the values of solidarity, collective action and the fight against social injustice were counterposed to the individualism and consumerism of ‘neo-capitalism’”.This relationship was very different to the one during the rise of Fascism in the early 1920s when “the students, as well known, had played a quite different role as the leaders and supporters of the anti-worker squads”. In 1968, however, the social, economical, political atmosphere was different: Italy had gone through an ‘Economic Miracle’ which had exacerbated the problems of migration and created great discontent among the working class on issues such as housing, salaries, pensions and the lack of adequate representation. Also, education reforms had created, for the first time, a mass education system beyond primary school which had “grave inadequacies – traditional curricula, a shortage of classrooms and textbooks, a lack of teacher training institutions, etc.”. Both workers and students, although from different social classes, were brought together by their grievances and their desire of a new social identity, and as suggested by Lumley they crossed the social and cultural frontiers, into what he considers “a strange encounter”. Lumley’s use of the word “strange” to define the collaboration between workers and students, is justified by the fact that “if it had not been for politics, these social groups would have scarcely have come in contact with one another socially”, or as it exceptionally occurred in the early 1920s, they encountered, but facing each other as enemies.

As previously mentioned, what made 1968 so unique, was “the wide geographical spread of student activism”. Italy was strongly influenced by foreign events: “To the activists and ideologues, proponents of united revolutionary action by workers and students, the French events of May came as a shining example”. The student movement, fundamentally anti-authoritarian, libertarian and collectivist, was not only protesting against poor conditions, it was also eager to achieve an “ethical revolt, a notable attempt to turn the tide against the predominant values of the time”.However, the Italian students felt that in order to successfully accomplish their revolt, a collaboration with the working class would have been necessary: “Unlike the bulk of the German student movement, which dismissed the working class as irredeemably integrated, and unlike Marcuse, who put the emphasis on marginal groups as the true revolutionaries, the Italian students never thought for a moment that they were the revolutionary class…their aspirations to radical change would only make headway if they carried them to the working classes and convinced them of the necessity and viability of their cause”. Contrasting with students in Germany and France, it is obvious that the Italian student movement relied heavily on the collaboration with the working class, and this caused a rapid and inevitable turn, away from universities and towards factories. With the favour of the workers, especially of the younger ones who were enthusiastic about the students’ anti-authoritarianism, the students helped the workers movement by making available facilities for meetings, distributing leaflets, and joining picket lines and demonstrations. These included events such as the Marzotto protest where “students from two of the nearest universities, Padua and Trento, were prominent”; the Magnetti Marelli strike in the Milan area where “students were active in organizing demonstration marches”; the pensions demonstration and the emblematic ‘battle of Corso Traiano’ where the tension ran high and “in contrast to the events in Paris, it seemed as if a real alliance, on a revolutionary basis, was being formed between young workers and students”. The students considered themselves to be a guerrilla force at the service of the working class, as suggested in a leaflet entitled Guerriglia urbana e rivoluzione operaia: “only the working class can make the revolution, but whilst capital has its police…the student movement is the guerrilla force of the working class in as far as it creates disorganization and disorder”.

This is a preview of the whole essay

In France, as previously mentioned, unity between workers and students wasn’t as profound and long-lasting as in Italy. French students’ action of taking part in the workers demonstrations was at first considered atypical; it was probably unthinkable that students could mingle with the consolidated, class-conscious working class: “Workers on strike at the Saviem lorry factory in Caen were joined by students – still an unusual action at the time”. During the battles in the streets of Paris, young workers joined in by helping the students to build barricades, yet, as suggested by Marwick: “young workers joined in, perhaps more because it was fun than to express class solidarity”. It was more difficult to establish a profound worker-student relationship in France, because even though the younger workers were willing to collaborate with the student movement, the older trade union leaders “anxiously prevented too close a fraternization with students”. The relatively weak relationship between student movement and workers movement in France can also be explained by the presence of diverging interests which divided the two organisations: the students “brought together the anti-imperialist cause, the anti-capitalist cause, and the immediate student grievances, focusing in particular on the Fouchet reforms”. These included claims common also to students in Italy and Germany, which concerned the size of classes, examination standards, and student representation in university councils, the sexual issue, anti-Vietnam feelings and aversion for the Communist Party “considered unresponsive to demands for change”. The idea of a uniformity of student movements’ interests in Europe is reinforced by Chris Rootes when he affirms that “there is nothing to suggest that the motivations of French student protestors were much different from those of activists elsewhere”. On the other hand, the French workers, mainly the younger ones, were protesting for higher salaries, their lack of decision making, and a desire for better working conditions.

The French student-worker collaboration, even if considered weak compared to the one in Italy, was based on shared interests such as the same aversion towards the French Communist Party, the same desire for a “greater delegation of authority – the right of comanagement” and a common enemy: Charles de Gaulle. The students were annoyed by “de Gaulle’s concentration on foreign affairs and his failure to respond to the often deplorable conditions in the universities”, whilst “to protesting workers and intellectuals, the Gaullist regime seemed the prime example of an over bureaucratized, technocratic, soulless institution”. Therefore the relationship between the student movement and the working movement was one founded on a general discontent of conditions and the common desire to democratise society and institutions . These common interests are underlined by a speech from the CFDT: “The student struggle to democratise the university and the workers’ struggle to democratise industry are one and the same. The constraints and institutions against which the students are rebelling are paralleled by even more intolerable forms in factories, or worksites, in offices and workshops…Industrial and administrative monarchy must be replaced by democratic institutions based on self-management”. An emblematic event that marked “a temporary unity between unions and students” was a great strike called by the trade unions on 13 May: a nation-wide general strike, supported by 30-40% of the workers, university and secondary school students, professional organizations and a substantial portion of the general public. It was a significant episode, that gave a hope for a student-worker unity and indicated that the trade unions had been able to put their distrust of students to one side, nevertheless it wasn’t enough to build a solid unity between the two organisations.

Why wasn’t the relationship between student movement and workers movement in France not as profound as in Italy? We could blame it on the “extraordinary compression” of the 1968 events, and suggest that things went too quickly in order for the two movements to build a solid bond. But this is too simplistic a justification, the real explanation lies at the base of French society, where the workers’ rigorous class-consciousness gave strong power to the “anti-student” trade unions. Marwick clearly explains that “The ‘unity’ of workers and students had come about because the older workers and union leaders had been outraged by the police violence against students and because the younger workers had grievances of their own (not for a genuine desire for unity or collaboration), but it was never very profound”. The trade unions and older workers, which effectively controlled the workers movement, were looking for concrete results and reforms, they had a family to look after and a job to safeguard, they probably had no real interest in collaborating with the utopian and too dangerously radical student movement: “In a July 1968 survey Inglehart found that young, middle-class people (from whom most students were drawn) were much more likely to give ‘radical’, non-materialist reasons for participating in protest than were older middle-class people or, more particularly, working class respondents”. Therefore even though students’ and workers’ protests were fired by similar ideals and principles, they were nonetheless fighting for different aims. We must bear in mind that the two movements originated from socially and economically diverse backgrounds; the middle-class students were relatively wealthy and had nothing to lose, whilst the workers, who eventually ran out of money, had to inevitably put an end to the collaboration with the students. The breaking of the already fragile student-worker relationship was also effectively challenged by the French government which made “carefully calculated applications of force (police charged strikes at Renault and Peugeot factories)” and called an election that would take the parties’ attention away from the demonstrations. In France the power of legally recognised institutions over the working class (e.g. trade unions), was one of the main causes for the end of the student-worker relationship; priority was given to the workers’ grievances and a lack of money to support further strikes, inevitably broke the already feeble students-worker alliance.

On the other hand, in Italy, the bond between student movement and workers’ movement was stronger and more enduring. This fervent union was facilitated by the political, social and economical circumstances of that particular period, such as the education reform, the ‘Economic Miracle’ and the crisis in relations in the education system and workplaces which “meant an encounter between students and workers as two groups sharing homologous situations”. This crisis, which was initiated by the inadequacies of the education reform, brought the students nearer to the working class: “Students were no longer a protected and privileged elite (and there was) a supposition that their futures lay more with a working class than a middle class destiny”. On the other hand, in Germany, thanks to an expansion in the welfare state, “a whole generation of university graduates was able without any great struggle to obtain leading teaching, planning and administration positions”. This situation lead the German students to have no real sympathy or admiration for the working class, and consequently the student-worker relationship didn’t exist . Furthermore, it is fundamental to bear in mind that “one can not talk about a consolidated working class and working-class culture in Italy in the way that has been done for Britain, France or Germany”. In Germany and in France, the workers were more class conscious, therefore even if the students were willing to initiate a collaboration (like the French students), it would have been harder to develop a profound relationship. Not surprisingly, the first Italian protests involving both students and workers, took place in “factories where the trade unions were traditionally weak”. Until action was kept spontaneous, the relationship between students and workers was strong and the “idea that students should put themselves at the service of the working class predominated”. The rank and file of the worker-student assembly at the FIAT Mirafiori plant, openly criticised and challenged trade union caution ness: “According to these gentlemen the class struggle takes place only on certain days of the year, as if they were Bank Holidays, and they of course decide when. But we are not going to wait for permission from anyone”. However, when in Autumn 1968, new Italian revolutionary groups were formed, and action became more organised, the relationship between students and workers became progressively weaker and then eventually died out. Organisations such as: Lotta Continua, Avanguardia Operaia, Potere Operaio and Il Manifesto, “came into existence because of the students’ movements, but at the same time they put an end to the student movement as an autonomous force; student issues were subordinated to strategies relating to the industrial working class”. Their relationship was further exacerbated by the fact that “the groups were sectarian, dominated by Third World models of revolution and unable to draw realistic conclusions from the evidence of Italian society”.An emblematic example of this initial deterioration in the student-worker relationship is when at the Pirelli rubber works in Milan the ‘new struggles’ (lotte nuove) emerged. These struggles, in which workers slowed down and disrupted production, left no space for students. It is obvious therefore, that when action is no longer spontaneous and trade unions gain importance, the student-worker unity is no longer possible because workers’ demands are given priority. Or in the case suggested by Lumley, this unity can degenerate: “the worker-student relationship developed by the movements of 1968-9 gave way to a hierarchical relationship in which the ex-student activists were usually the leaders”.

The collaboration between student movement and workers movement came about in Italy and France in 1968 because of the particular political, social and economical circumstances of that time. It was a relationship initiated by students’ revolutionary and spontaneous actions: “students and agitators could not help but think that they had had a significant part in setting the ball of mobilization rolling”. Class-consciousness of the working class, trade union power, similarity of interests and discontent were directly proportional to the strength of the relationship between students and workers. Not surprisingly, the stronger relationship was in Italy, where the working class was not yet consolidated, trade unions had a modest influence, the students and workers were suffering from grievances that originated from the reforms of the state, and the approach of the two organisations was facilitated by a ‘providential’ crisis in relations between the education system and workplaces. These factors suggest a particular predisposition for a strong student-worker alliance in Italy, and as suggested by Lumley, this working class “openness to ‘outside’ ideas and organization has historical and structural explanations”. On the other, due to its particular social history and structure, concentrated on a strong class-consciousness, France lacked this ‘openness’, and consequently had a weaker relationship between students and workers. Another essential factor which caused a strong relationship between the Italian student and workers’ movements is spontaneity. However, with the advent of revolutionary groups, which implied organisation, the student movement’s autonomy was undermined, until the student issues were finally “subordinated to strategies relating to the industrial working class”. The trade unions’ decision “to ‘ride the tiger’ of militancy”, confimed the fact that, the greater the influence of the political institutions and trade unions, the weaker the relationship between students and workers will be: “long-standing loyalties to the traditional parties of the left and to the trade unions made it difficult for the revolutionary groups to make progress”. The end of the Italian student-worker relationship proves that even though there are particular predispositions for a strong student-worker unity lying in the country’s social, political and economical structure, this relationship is precarious, because it is mainly the result of an unusual historical situation. As suggested by Lumley, these social groups (middle-class students and working class), would not naturally encounter, and the German events, where there was no unity between workers and students, prove this thesis. Even though the two groups share the same ideals, the utopian and radical interests of the student movement clash with the workers’ desire for concrete results and necessity to maintain a family and a job. Therefore, even though the combined struggles of workers and students marked an extraordinary period of history, it was a relationship doomed to end mainly due to any incompatibility between the higher aspirations of its members.

2886 words including quotations

Bibliography

- Bude, Heinz, ‘The German Kriegskinder: Origins and Impact of the Generation of 1968’, in Mark Roseman, ed., Generations in Conflict: Youth Revolt and Generation Formation in Germany, Cambridge, 1995

- Ginsborg, Paul, A History of Contemporary Italy. Society and Politics 1943-1988, London, Penguin, 1990

- Lumley, Robert, States of Emergency: Cultures of Revolt in Italy from 1968 to 1978, London: Verso, 1990

- Marwick, Arthur, The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy and the United States, 1958 – 1974, Oxford, 1988

- Rootes, Chris, ‘Student Activism in France: 1968 and After’, in Cerny, Philip, Social Movements and Protest in France, London, 1982

- Wegs, J. R. & Ladrech, R., Europe Since 1945: A Concise History, Bedford/St.Martin’s, Boston, 1996

Marwick, Arthur, The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy and the United States, 1958- 1974, Oxford, 1988, p. 584

Marwick, Arthur, The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy and the United States, 1958–1974, p. 584

Wegs, J. R. & Ladrech, R., Europe Since 1945: A Concise History, Bedford/St.Martin’s, Boston, 1996, p. 235

Lumley, Robert, States of Emergency: Cultures of Revolt in Italy from 1968 to 1978, London: Verso, 1990, p.116

Ginsborg, Paul, A History of Contemporary Italy. Society and Politics 1943-1988, London, Penguin, 1990, p.301

Ginsborg, Paul, A History of Contemporary Italy. Society and Politics 1943-1988, p.308

Ginsborg, Paul, A History of Contemporary Italy. Society and Politics 1943-1988, p.298

Lumley, Robert, States of Emergency: Cultures of Revolt in Italy from 1968 to 1978, p.114

Marwick, Arthur, The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy and the United States, 1958–1974, p. 584

Marwick, Arthur, The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy and the United States, 1958–1974, p. 619

Ginsborg, Paul, A History of Contemporary Italy. Society and Politics 1943-1988, p.301

Ginsborg, Paul, A History of Contemporary Italy. Society and Politics 1943-1988, p.309

Marwick, Arthur, The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy and the United States, 1958–1974, p. 601

Marwick, Arthur, The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy and the United States, 1958–1974, p. 602

Ginsborg, Paul, A History of Contemporary Italy. Society and Politics 1943-1988, p.316

Lumley, Robert, States of Emergency: Cultures of Revolt in Italy from 1968 to 1978, p.114

Marwick, Arthur, The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy and the United States, 1958–1974, p. 604

Marwick, Arthur, The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy and the United States, 1958–1974, p. 611

Marwick, Arthur, The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy and the United States, 1958–1974, p. 605

Wegs, J. R. & Ladrech, R., Europe Since 1945: A Concise History, p. 233

Rootes, Chris, ‘Student Activism in France: 1968 and After’, in Cerny, Philip, Social Movements and Protest in France, London, 1982, p. 21

Wegs, J. R. & Ladrech, R., Europe Since 1945: A Concise History, p. 235

Wegs, J. R. & Ladrech, R., Europe Since 1945: A Concise History, p. 231

Wegs, J. R. & Ladrech, R., Europe Since 1945: A Concise History, p. 235

Speech of Confédération Français et Démocratique de Travail (CFDT), in Wegs, J. R. & Ladrech, R., Europe Since 1945: A Concise History, p. 235

Marwick, Arthur, The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy and the United States, 1958–1974, p. 610

Rioux and Backmann, L’Explosion de mai, 256

Rootes, Chris, ‘Student Activism in France: 1968 and After’, p.23

Marwick, Arthur, The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy and the United States, 1958–1974, p. 610

Rootes, Chris, ‘Student Activism in France: 1968 and After’, p.21