A-Infos (en) France, OCL CA #353 - A Look Back at "Block Everything on September 10th" (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

This article summarizes the debate on the September 10th movement that 
took place during the latest news committee of Courant Alternatif. Our 
views generally converged, but with nuances based on our own local 
experiences. The objective here is to present the key points that 
emerged from the debate: the strengths and weaknesses of this movement, 
and the possible perspectives. This analysis covers only the period from 
September 10th to 18th and does not claim to predict the future. Our 
goal is not to lecture the components of this movement, of which we were 
a part, but to initiate a critical reflection that will continue into 
the next Board meeting.

Before September 10
The announcement made on social media, "Let's block everything on 
September 10th," led, from the outset, to highlight similarities with 
the Yellow Vest movement in 2018-2019. However, while some activists 
hoped to revive this movement, which had become independent of any union 
or political framework (see, in CA 345, the special report "Yellow Vests 
six years later"), it quickly became clear that we were in a very 
different dynamic, despite similarities.
Unlike the Yellow Vests, the movement of the 10th did not focus on 
unifying demands: the objective was to "block" the country. From the 
outset, it adopted a more offensive political discourse than that of the 
Yellow Vests, and therefore very ambitious. But, in concrete terms, it 
was more of a "Fed up with being fed up!"
To organize September 10, "General Assemblies" (GAs) or "Citizens' 
Assemblies" were held regularly throughout the summer, bringing together 
more or less people depending on the location. These GAs attracted an 
increasingly large audience until the end of August, without, however, 
really going beyond a particular social milieu: the "left of the left," 
more educated than the French average, and essentially people who 
usually participate in union or political demonstrations.
Posters and leaflet distributions were organized to encourage people to 
join this movement, but in the two weeks preceding September 10, these 
GAs seemed to reach a threshold without really succeeding in attracting 
people beyond those who usually participate in inter-union (IS) 
demonstrations, and who are fed up with their leapfrog attitude.
The strong media coverage of "Block Everything," amplified by social 
networks, generated a dynamic that seemed to worry the government. 
Various defusing measures were then attempted: raising the spectre of 
the far right and then the far left as being at the origin of the 
movement; diversion at the top with the announced suicide of the Bayrou 
government; announcement of a disproportionate police deployment for 
September 10 (80,000 cops, 24 armored vehicles, not counting 
surveillance drones); banning all movement in universities and high 
schools (with an administrative closure of universities at the start of 
a small disturbance, and violent intimidation of high school students).

September 10 and 18
The 10th was not as successful as many expected, but it was not a 
failure. While the demonstrations were quite large, the blockades, which 
were supposed to be the central element of the movement, were quickly 
stopped, or even made impossible, by the police. As for strikes, they 
were rare-and without strikes, you can't block the economy.
On the streets on the 10th, we found essentially the most radical 
fraction of those usually present at IS or political demonstrations, 
even if we could note a certain number of first-time demonstrators. We 
also noticed quite a few people campaigning for the Palestinian cause.
So, there were, for the most part, people belonging to the salaried 
middle class, often in the civil service, and who, not having among the 
lowest incomes, frequently mobilize for more general objectives than 
their own plight-unlike the GJ who were fighting for their immediate 
situation. The most exploited workers did not join the movement. That 
said, it seems to have been viewed sympathetically by many who did not 
participate.
Many general meetings discussed continuing the actions on the 11th, but 
the movement of the 10th had no outlet anywhere other than a call for 
the IS day on the 18th. It did not have enough momentum to become 
autonomous, as the working world did not join it, with a few exceptions.
The 10th therefore served as a springboard for the IS: the 18th appeared 
to be a success for it, because that was the day when the demonstrations 
were the largest.
In many places, however, there was not the turnout of the 2023 
demonstrations. This can be partly explained by the "political" 
objectives of the 18th: general opposition to government policy, not 
opposition to one of its reforms (such as pension reform). In any case, 
the mobilization was quite significant in small towns, which reflects 
the persistence of social ties in these territories, and, since the GJ, 
a growing tendency towards the decentralization of protest sites.

General meetings and blockages
The general meetings leading up to the 10th and then the 18th were 
fairly limited spaces for political debate, with discussions essentially 
focusing on the "actions" to be taken-and therefore more on form than 
substance-because the blockages appeared to be an end in themselves. 
These general meetings were also too often a space where the dominant 
narratives of activists seeking to recruit for their own faction, 
representatives of specific causes, and people who considered themselves 
avant-gardes asserted themselves. They therefore did not represent, 
either socially or politically, all the people who would be at the 
demonstrations on September 10th and 18th, particularly those in large 
cities.
In these general meetings, as in the discussions on Telegram or Signal, 
there was a tendency to exclude people who were not "politically 
correct": to participate, it was necessary to have a prior political 
agreement with the general political ideas of the "radical" left, and to 
respect the language or codes in vogue in postmodern currents. Enough to 
drive away, in some places, ex-GJ, rank-and-file union activists, or 
"ordinary" employees.
In this respect, these GAs have diverged completely from the GJ 
roundabouts, where the possibility of sharing ideas and living 
conditions, and of building links, has favored the process of 
politicization and allowed the GJ to constitute themselves as an active 
class.
The blockades, for their part, have hardly brought together participants 
in the GAs. This mode of action certainly has the advantage of being 
able to bring together unemployed people, students, the precarious, 
etc., but we must not fantasize about it. The blockades, as they 
currently stand, do not block the economy: they are above all a way of 
making oneself visible to the public and in one's own eyes, of coming 
together to say "Come with us."
In many GAs, the strike as a political weapon was not discussed, or it 
was to push the union leadership to call for it. It is certain that 
strikes can block the economy. But the weakness of the current strikes 
makes them, for the time being, just another fantasy, that of political 
groups calling for a "general strike" in an incantatory manner.

Autonomy and inter-union
The CGT, Solidaires, and the FSU called for September 10th but set the 
date for the 18th. The union leadership's goal was, in fact, primarily 
to "deflate" the 10th by setting another day of mobilization... while 
giving the impression of supporting "Block Everything," so as not to 
oppose the fringe of union members who grumble about the SI's policy.
In some places, union teams actually pushed for "Block Everything," but 
this summer the SI only proposed a petition against the Bayrou project, 
while the call for the 10th had already been launched.
In the end, most of the participants in the 10th were also there on the 
18th, while regretting returning to the routine of leapfrogging "days of 
action."
Obviously, the IS benefited from the benevolence of the media-political 
apparatus: the media relayed in advance a future success of the 18th, 
the police allowed the 18th to happen without repression (unlike 2023). 
The government's aim was to put the IS back in the saddle (there was no 
question of it being overwhelmed) and to brush the "social partners" in 
the right direction to better negotiate with them.
However, the failure of the 10th should not be attributed solely to the 
union leadership: if the latter worked to short-circuit "Block 
everything," its lack of autonomous perspectives also played a role. The 
success of the 18th compared to the 10th highlights our partial 
inability to self-organize outside of reformist institutions, both 
political and union. September 10th is the apogee of what the activists 
of the "radical" left can carry out in an "autonomous" way: a sort of 
self-management of the "day of action", certainly without the union 
leadership, but just as without a future as their own.

The political outlet
Often, aside from "blocking for the sake of blocking," the movement's 
only "political" outlet has been political: future elections. It is 
therefore no coincidence that LFI has rushed into it. Political 
organizations always confine social movements to electoral perspectives. 
It would be necessary to manage to put them in the minority within these 
movements, by drawing their base towards more radical perspectives.
But anti-fascism does not encourage broader politicization: while 
slogans against "fascism" dominate the current period, this term is a 
catch-all used on a range of subjects as broad as it is vague. It thus 
qualifies the current violence of the State, as if the bourgeois State 
were not intrinsically violent. Moreover, "fascism" is instrumentalized 
by certain networks to silence any criticism of certain reasoning or 
practices. Finally, anti-fascism also offers only electoral prospects as 
an outlet: to block the RN, one must ultimately go, or even call for 
"voting well" (NFP especially), which amounts to consolidating the 
established order by defending so-called democratic institutions.
Last observation: "Block everything" has not sought a junction with 
other movements, such as territorial struggles against major useless and 
destructive works; such an association would nevertheless allow the 
protest to be broadened to a terrain radically opposed to capitalism.

For the rest
The preparations for the 10th put general meetings back on the agenda, 
something that had almost not existed in 2023; it allowed for the 
beginnings of self-organization outside of the union and political 
apparatuses. The movement of the 10th began in general opposition to 
current policy. We have observed a politicization of a segment of the 
youth...
All this is positive in a society where tensions are rising (for 
example, the FNSEA and the Medef are threatening the government). There 
is also a threat of war. Given the current trajectory of capitalism, 
social conflict is likely to increase. But this unstable situation can 
lead to fear and inaction. We must therefore assume a political debate 
with people with whom we do not agree, insisting on the idea that it is 
inaction (and not action) that poses a problem for the future.
However, without a project for social change, there is no possible 
dynamic of protest. So we need to put forward the idea that the social 
movement must stop being constantly on the defensive, and instead try to 
offer perspectives for breaking with this world. Social movements must 
repoliticize themselves by affirming the need to destroy capitalism, 
which is death to the past, the present, and especially the future. 
Because, far from being solely a particular form of economic 
organization, it constitutes a global social relationship, which 
concerns all aspects of political, economic, social, cultural, 
biological, or emotional life. There is an urgent need to rediscover a 
desirable imaginary, proposing another form of social organization that 
is indispensable to counter the barbarity of this system of exploitation 
and oppression. This means collectively building a concrete 
revolutionary project based on socially useful activity: we decide 
together what we produce, how we produce it, for whom we produce it, and 
for what purpose. And how we share it equally.

Aiming for communism, without being satisfied with self-management.

The Poitou CJ, 09/20/25

http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4520
_________________________________________
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