Many comrades texts proliferating on social networks dedicated to Claude Chisserey and Charles Berg are addressed to me. Having known the two well, I want to give my testimony. These so-called “biographies” mix errors, untruths, political nonsense, phony testimonies, fanciful dates …
For years, when asked by journalists, I refuse to speak. The producer of the “New Watch Dogs” knows – too much – the media song.
But the time capital of our generation is running out, it’s time to testify.
I warn the reader: age causes memory lapses. Often the archives are lacking. I will therefore confine myself to mentioning what I have specific memories of, hoping that others will contribute their contribution to the history of an activist collective.
I joined the Lambert group in early 1962. I came from the PSU, more specifically from the Unified Socialist Youth, of which I was a manager. Previously, I was fortunate to be a member of the “Red Falcons”, the youth of the Bund, the Jewish socialist party.
At the PSU, I met “the” official Lambertist Jean Garabuau, a solid, serious, patient activist. We had sympathized; but above all I met Pierre Naville, founder of the surrealist movement with Maurice Nadeau, leader of the 4th century before the second world war. A well of historical, political, artistic culture of great humanity. He had opened his huge library for me near the radio house. Director of the CNRS, his work on automation, alienation in production, his writings on the New Leviathan, the history of surrealism, Leon Trotsky impressed me. Pierre was instrumental in my training. Until the end, he did everything to convince me not to join the group “La Vérité”. Later, I saw him again. He evoked with touching simplicity his relationship with the “Old Man” he had known …
I worked in a bank to pay for my studies. In 1962, when I arrived at the CNEP headquarters on the Grands Boulevards, I saw a man attacked by big arms while he was distributing a leaflet. I pick up a Workers Information / Worker Voice leaflet[1] dedicated to the anniversary of the Hungarian and Polish October! The fight intensifies. I defend it. Some other employees also, and we are pushing back the PCF staff. Louis Eemans – that was his name – joined me in the afternoon on the phone at the “Archives”, the bank’s most rotten department. At the exit, I agreed to do a GER.[2]
I did two.
The first of high quality with François de Massot, rue Fleurus. There were Claude Chisserey, Bertin, the Serfati brothers and perhaps Sarda. I am not sure. We were all co-opted; judged too young, I was 15, I was asked to do a second … GER. Xavier the head of this training group actually offered to lead me and I was integrated as an intern.
Claude Chisseray had actively participated in the UEC crisis. With a few others, he had joined the Trotskyist group.
In 1963, there were a handful of us.
Students gathered around Claude Chisserey with Joelle, Nicole Bernard, Lilianne and Jacques Lombard, Christian De Bresson, Georges, Brony, Yves Dorey (already an engineer I believe), his wife, Baptiste, Chesnais, Georges Sarda, Jean Puyade, Frankin but also Bakouche Herbeth, Froment… some others whose names I forgot. It’s up to Georges and Jean to complete if they want.
They created the CLER.
There was a wonderful boy whom “historians” in the early weeks neglected. Christian de Bresson. A tall skinny man of Canadian origin, a theoretically sharp, daring wrestler, bon vivant like a forban, great companion. I did not play any role among the students. Claude and Christian animated the CLER. More than an organization, it was a gang that I sometimes joined.
The Lambert group was really a small group. Activists gathered around him at the Stock Exchange cafe. Everything went through him. He helped, excelled. The young people climbed 5 rue de Charonne on the top floor of a fairly large, never heated, disused room which had a treasure, a mimeograph.
The youth work was directed by Xavier M.
Perfect for applying orientation; set back when it needed to be developed. Benevolent, he was appreciated; still alive, he should testify. The youth committee worked out and fixed the tasks. In fact, everything was very flexible, we acted freely, meeting on Saturday morning on the first floor of a cafe near the Comédie Française.
There was no discipline, personal ambitions absent, we invented, multiplied experiences. The egos expressed themselves in action. And God knows we are doing it! Claude and his comrades at the university. Me, in the working class youth; not in front of factories, in districts, localities.
Some activists came from youth hostels (FUAJ), rather old, G. Bloch, his wife, Maurice Sedé also, I believe Roy (?), Hélène, Dumoulins animated a small printed publication “Revolts”.
Between ecology, nature, poetry, naturism and an ounce of politics.
We recovered the title, created an offensive political newspaper to build the Revolutionary International Youth and its section … French!
The objective was simple: to build a revolutionary organization independent of youth.
Gerard Bloch made a good heart against bad fortune and we set to work. We were much less than in college. With a remarkable activist Mathieu – I hope still alive and a young libertarian typographer – we created the first group Révoltes à Aulnay. At the time of the miners’ strike, there were already about thirty of us, girls and boys, gathering several dozen in public meetings and hundreds in the balls that we organized. We acted as if there were twice as many of us. The town hall directed by the PCF did not want us, the physical confrontations multiplied but we imposed our presence to sell “Revolts” on the markets.
From this experience, there will be others … In the 19th, in Ivry, Nogent, Sevran, Boulogne etc… A dozen in the Paris region and a little less in the provinces. It was at this time that Mathe, Lanson, Bonin, Gerard, Dupont, Landron, Michel Panthou, etc. were recruited. Thanks to Boris Frankel we made it into the Normal Schools. Animators from the surrealist review “Rupture” joined us. Some teachers including G. Bonhome were involved in “the Emancipated School”. Thanks to the work of Raoul, directors of cinema, theater, actors come together: Alain Courneau, William Gleen, Alex Metayer, Juliette Bertho, Bernard Murat … From 1966, we really existed and “Revolts” is transformed of mimeographed bulletin in printed monthly, appeared … irregularly. Claude wrote the editorial. I was in charge of the summary. Many editors asserted themselves. The creation of a revolutionary independent youth organization bringing together students and young workers was taking shape with a few points of support in the provinces of Clermont-Ferrand, Dijon, Lyon, Grenoble, Toulouse and Nantes.
Nantes. This city was “autonomous”, led by an activist … who was not a Trotskyist: Alexandre Hébert but sat secretly on the Political Bureau! Lambert has always forced local activists to act under the authority of the secretary of the Departmental Union of FO! In short, the Trotskyists who defended the national orientation were often disowned because Hebert did not agree! Nevertheless: the Nantes residents had recruited young workers, particularly at Sud Aviation. Excluded from the CGT, they created an FO section.
Grenoble deserves special attention.
I have always had difficult relationships with Pierre Broué. The man hated political debates in favor of settling scores. This is how. But apart from his work as a historian, Pierre was a builder, a great organizer. In Grenoble, throughout the Valence region, Chamberry, etc., he had recruited and trained dozens of students and teachers. His influence was very important at the faculty.
In Clermont-Ferrand, there was Christian Nenny, in Dijon Yannick Bonny, in Lyon nobody, in Toulouse Michel Eliard… talents. Fighters who multiplied initiatives.
In short, the claim that CLER and the Revolts groups were Claude Chisseray and Charles Berg is a joke. We were not “chefs” but with others, the leaders of a collective adventure. Let us add that some young teachers like J. Jacques Marie, old ones like Duthel etc. were taking their share of the work. JJ Marie not only published with Georges Haupt “The Bolsheviks by themselves” but he also carried out essential work in the direction of the USSR and Poland. I know something about it.
We had reached a critical point. Recruitment had changed in nature: from individual recruitment to wider work. We had public meetings. Our newspapers were distributed relatively widely. The Central Marxist Study Circle brought together several hundred participants. We explained, we argued with other currents. Probably too much, but we were certain of the conquerors. And, all the groups made peace at Maspéro whose publishing work, the bookstore, helped to train a whole generation.
This quantitative progress was indisputable.
On the eve of 1968, there were four, five hundred of us and were preparing a meeting for June: ” 3,500 young people at the Mutualité! “
National meeting that we organized in connection with the mobilizations of the youth: the participation of young workers in numerous violent strikes, student demonstrations confronting the police … indicating that something was preparing …
“Revolts” had become a real monthly. The struggle for Socialism was our daily life.
There were not really “targets” but real results.
The Federation of Revolutionary Students was proclaimed a few weeks before the May explosion in the Fox Hall. Christian de Bresson elected national secretary. In the gallery, a banner signed Karl Liebnecht affirmed: youth is the flame of the proletarian revolution!
We had fishing, 24-hour activists. It’s hardly an exaggeration. How many times after a long UNEF GA ending at dawn, we would end the night in restaurants open until morning in the Halles district. Then I hired … Claude was a leader, playing a major role in the training of executives. We were happy to militate mixing political life and love. In fact, we loved each other so much …
We were going to remake the world. Fissa!
The time was joyful, carefree: the Lambert group then had a semi-permanent, a bookseller, the magnificent Raoul. And that was enough.
1968 checked everything.
Check the analysis because we were engaged in the fight for the victory of the world revolution, socialism, we had the chance to participate in an international revolutionary crisis! In part, we had anticipated it. I remember a leaflet that Claude and Bertin had written: in Prague, Warsaw, Berlin, Paris, the youth is mobilizing, the revolution is advancing, etc. The proletarian revolution in the west, the political revolution in the east.
We campaign to link the fight to the university and … to the factory. Students, workers united against De Gaulle. From May 3, by actively participating in the mobilizations, we opened the prospect of a general strike.
Then there was May 10.
The public call to leave the demonstration while the students were massively confronting the state apparatus, the denunciation by us of the demonstrators was more than a mistake. More than a fault. A catastrophe which, having never been discussed, has never been overcome.
The anecdote is known. Claude is a member of BP, like Xavier, Stéphane Just and François de Massot. Jacques Lombard and I are at CC. We are opposed to the decision imposed by the leaders of the Political Bureau to leave the demonstration. Democratic centralism requires, we applied. It was Claude who spoke to call to leave the Latin Quarter, to campaign for the general strike. Our adversaries have not failed to stigmatize this “betrayal”. They were right.
We have never recovered politically. Claude suffered more than the others. Until May 10, the FER played a really important role. Without exaggerating, our influence was real. Thus, we had contributed with Jacques Sauvageot to write an appeal to the population for the general strike. There was no manipulation: the vice-president of the UNEF appreciated us. If we had not left the barricades, the force of the FER, “Revolt” groups would have been deployed … We would have played a major role as long as the general strike began at Sud Aviation in Nantes thanks in part to the Trotskyists. We would have convinced, limited the leftist surge.
A debated error is largely overcome.
It was our will.
Lambert brought us together: Claude, Jacques and I – Christian, injured in the clashes was in the hospital – to essentially explain to us: if you open this discussion, Stéphane, François, Xavier will be denounced, the organization will not survive there not. We have to get out of this crisis from above. Later we will talk about it.
We accepted as much as we trusted Lambert. Although … bitter, Claude left for military service without digesting this arrangement. Christian de Bresson returned to Canada with the same resentment. Jacques and I got involved in activism. It must be said that the successes were there. May 10 has apparently faded. Without ever disappearing. During a lunch with Lambert, we invented the AJS. The acronym stood for Alliance des Jeunes pour le Socialisme. Not for unionism…
When Claude returned from military service, the political picture had changed: the AJS had become a living youth organization. We talked freely. The enthusiasm was real, the training provided. When I meet with former activists, most refer to the summer training camps as one of their best memories. Sick, Claude takes care of the work in direction of the critical militants of the CP and the LCR; he was a first-rate agitator and … a tireless propagandist. He could spend several hours convincing. I had, against my will, been made responsible for the work of the faction towards the socialist party.
After Pierre Lambert, I tried to convince Lionel Jospin to join François Mitterrand’s party. It was no. Claude succeeded: memories memories…
And then there was the UNEF.
During the last congress of the trade union organization in Orleans still gathering all the currents, undisciplined free electron, I did all I could … in the corridors to convince the leaders of the PSU … to stay, to keep the direction! In vain.
So we stayed face to face with the PC. The battle for leadership was inevitable. I was not worried about the outcome.
The AJS had real political strength. 1er February 1970, we gathered some 8000 young people at Le Bourget. It is a real success that the press must acknowledge with regret and amazement. Building on this success, the AJS will amplify its presence at the university, in high schools, begin to recruit young workers, inaugurate systematic work in the homes of young workers with a dedicated organization. What energy! In the provinces, the establishment is strengthening. Some time later, a gathering of thousands of young people in Essen embodied the internationalist orientation of the IRJ. The revolutionary student alliance published a quality journal, the New Marxist Studies. We had acquired, financed, built a large room. We felt invincible and in the celebrations of our newspaper, Jeune Révolutionnaire, thousands of young people applauded our choir singing revolutionary songs.
Antistalinian action was part of our DNA. At the initiative of Gilles Perrault, we had waged a national campaign so that Leopold Trepper, the “grand conductor” of the Red Orchestra, could, as he wished, leave anti-Semitic Poland for Tel Aviv. The Polish government had given in. The Samizdat translated by JJ Marie popularized by G. Bloch provided us with precious ammunition, especially as in Prague, normalization, in the shadow of the Soviet army was in full swing.
Anyway, we won it.
This battle led by Serac, Schapira, Boudine, Nestor, Cambadelis, Yannick Bonny, JL Mélenchon, Christian, Lanson, Bonin, Jacky, Nicole, Sonia, Léa, Josette, Elisabeth etc propelled the influence of the OCI in the trade union movement …
Alas we were running UNEF alone. It was necessary to rebuild, to do everything. Activists from the OIC and the AJS became the supporters of the student organization. Exhausting.
Obviously I had congratulated myself on the victory, worried about its consequences, especially since unionism had always bothered me. Quickly, we became realistic, turned our faces by calling… to vote in the university elections. However, we had always fought participation … Gaullist! The principles were flouted, the militants taken aback.
The principles, said Napoleon, are like bayonets you can do anything with it, except sit on it …
We were starting to have sore buttocks.
The cocktail of union activism and political opportunism grieved me. I expressed my concern to the BP without being heard. I had left work young, headed the OIC province, saw the physical and political exhaustion of the real student activists good at handy of the UNEF. Quite naturally, political action went into the background, the student sector became autonomous … with Lambert’s blessing which multiplied union maneuvers.
The AJS was dying. In reality, our strategic orientation in youth was undermined. Gradually, UNEF became a partner at the university of FEN, especially of FO. All of this was to be paid a high price.
Claude was lucid. His discussions with LCR activists underscored the depoliticization of our militants in the UNEF.
He was sick, sometimes desperate but of rare lucidity; tireless theorist, the OIC course challenged him, Lambert with whom he had love-hate relationships … frequented him less and less: he suffered. The last time I saw him in November 79, he was worried about the unionization of our young work. He was right. We were now hyper organized with officials at all levels repeating the same formulas: sclerosis was threatening. I did my part. A few years later, the OIC students, leaders at the head joined the PS; under Lambert’s authority, they had become accustomed to “negotiation”, unprincipled maneuvers, class collaboration: they had become “responsible”, good for service in social democracy …
Claude’s death in February 1981 amazed me. “Watchman where is the night?” Asks Job. No one can unravel the mystery of an apparently chosen death.
His disappearance symbolizes the end of youth work and the beginning of the end for the OIC.
After my exclusion, in 1978, I remained a Trotskyist until 1981: the call to vote Mitterrand in the first round, the refusal to present a candidate carrying a revolutionary alternative with the union of the left kept me away; beyond, the international failure of the Fourth International challenged me. And then the foreclosure machine installed in the courtyard of 87 rue du Faubourg Saint Denis was working full time. A permanent device[3] considerable, prohibited internal discussions, all of which argued for a global reflection on the alleged construction of a revolutionary party. As for the analysis of the political situation, she was simply mad.
Read or reread the “Truth”, the theoretical review of the OIC of the 1970s. Each editorial announces the rapid end of the Fifth Republic, the imminent and certain opening of the revolutionary crisis; it was “the imminence of the revolution” at the time when Reagan and Thatcher organized the neo-liberal strategy … Look for the error.
Again, an organization can go wrong, it can be wrong. It is therefore necessary to discuss it, to bet everything on democracy. Rosa Luxembourg said the essentials on this and many others.
Nothing like this in the OIC. Goal-result such was the creed since the “line” was obviously – always – right.
Goals were never met. The catastrophic results…
This testimony has its limits. Its share of subjectivity. Others tell their truth. Pierre Salvaing began to gather materials, texts, resolutions to reflect on this time. Other testimonies will follow[4], initiatives.
We tried hard. We have failed.
No nostalgia, no regret. At the end of his life, the giant Marx kept saying “I doubt”.
I doubt. Without giving up.
JK
[1] The two groups joined forces to jointly publish their publications in certain companies.
[2] GER: Revolutionary Study Group. 3 or 4 month internship devoted to the study of texts by Marx, Hegel, Lenin, Trotsky etc … In the end, the participants were co-opted or not in the organization.
[3] Some have remained … until today. Honestly, I pity them: “professionals” without revolution.
[4] Comrade Mathe proposes to organize a site dedicated to Claude Chisserey with testimonies, photos, texts … Hopefully the idea will materialize.
–
The Club is the free expression space for Mediapart subscribers. Its contents do not engage the drafting.
