Capitalists fear armed workers¶
Core Argument¶
In this chapter, the author exposes the class logic behind the immediate post-liberation disarmament of the French resistance fighters, particularly the armed workers of Paris. The core argument is that the de Gaullist leadership, having been compelled to place itself at the head of the popular uprising to prevent it from slipping out of bourgeois control, pivoted the moment the Nazis were expelled to the central task of disarming the proletariat. The chapter demonstrates that this was not a technical or security measure, but a political imperative driven by capitalist fear of an armed working class.
The author marshals direct evidence from the capitalist press to substantiate this claim. A report from the Herald (29 August) frames the problem as one of weaning “high-spirited youths” back to the “hum-drum existence of labour,” revealing the ruling class’s anxiety about workers who have tasted both arms and agency. The News Chronicle (30 August) offers a more elaborate pretext: that disarmament is necessary to prevent infiltration by Darnand’s fascist militia or German soldiers in civilian clothes. The author dismisses this as “balderdash,” pointing out the absurdity of German soldiers passing as Frenchmen and noting that the only German troops in Paris were already prisoners. The real reason, the chapter argues, is laid bare by the Manchester Guardian’s military correspondent (31 August), who warns against the “dangerous sentiment” of excusing “anti-social behaviour” in battle heroes—a transparent reference to the revolutionary potential of workers who refuse to return to subordination.
The chapter draws on the immediate historical context of the Liberation of Paris in August 1944, situating it within the broader dynamics of the Second World War as a conflict between rival imperialist blocs. The author argues that de Gaulle’s government served Anglo-American imperialism, and that its demagogic programme masked the defence of the French big capitalists, many of whom had collaborated with the Nazis. The polemic is directed squarely against the bourgeois narrative that disarmament was a matter of public order or anti-fascist security. Instead, the author insists that the capitalists, terrified of workers with bitter memories of collaboration and exploitation, sought to confiscate their arms to prevent a settling of accounts. The parallel with Italy is invoked to show a pattern: the Allies protect the capitalist class, sacrificing only a few scapegoats while preserving the social order.