BRITTANY SEND MASS DELEGATION TO PARIS _
. PARIS -- With the coming of spring, the workers have launched a number of economic demands, including wage increases or a reduc= tion in hours without a decrease in wages. The bosses have responded in the. automobile industry by lay-offs (Peugeot at: Sochaux) or lockouts (Berliet in the Lyon region).
Up to now these movements have occurred in isolation from each other, the federation leaderships failing to intervene. As a result the struggles have remained local in character.
This. passive attitude of the federation leaderships -- whether of the coT [confédération Générale du-Travail], the CFDT [Confédération Francaise et Démocratique du Travail], or Force Ouvridre -involves not only the struggles in the automobile industry. It was shown a week earlier during a demonstration that merits attention as perhaps the trial run of a new form of action in the class struggle.
The trade-union organizations in Brittany (excepting those affiliated with Force Ouvriére), in order to present the demands of the workers in that area, decided to send a "delegation" to Paris — composed of 5,000 men.
A collection was taken up to cover traveling expenses.
The demonstration took place in face of obstructive measures by the local government which tried to prevail on the transportation companies not to rent buses to the delegation. In Paris some © scuffles with the police occurred in'the streets.
The causes of the demonstration were clearly of a local nature, Brittany is a poor region, both agriculturally as well as industrially. It exports laborers, Capitalist investments there are quite limited. .
But the form of the demonstration ~- sending a few thousand :men to Paris -- is relatively new. About two years ago, the iron miners in the east, then the coal miners, initiated something simi-
lar. Up until then, such delegations were limited to a few trade=_ union leaders, not going beyond a couple of dozen, .
What is behind this new tactic? Undoubtedly one of the reasons is the Bonapartist character of the Gaullist regime. Form erly the: local officials (deputies, mayors, councillors) and top — local government functionaries generally succeeded in finding some solution. This avenue is-no longer open. The government no longer delegates such power to local officials, even if they are bourgeois. Decisions must: be made at the very top. This being the case, it is understandable why the workers would want to send a mass delegation to Paris in order to impress those with the power to make decisions,
A demonstration of this kind is potentially very revolutionary. It would enable an alert militant leadership, under the right circumstances, to reinforce demonstrations of the Paris workers with various regional demonstrations, Such circumstances cannot be artificially created, but it.is necessary to prepare the workers and their organizations for the occasion by calling their attention to a development of this kind such as the Breton workers organized,
The Paris workers should bolster such demonstrations by mobilizing at least the vanguard to join in, even if, for the time being, the demonstrations have only a limited character. They should get to know how the demonstrations were organized, etc.
But the leaderships are silent. They say nothing about their value. They do not appear to understand their meaning at all. This lack of understanding is directly linked to their passivity with regard to the Gaullist regime which they do not dream of confronting. They await its downfall after de Gaulle dies and hope that after his burial the good old days of bourgeois democracy will return.
FRANKFORT