The fact that the workers' and students' goals are incompatible, hence the role of the Left, shows that the the second and third factors are inextricably linked. When it is considered that the seeds of student dissatisfaction were sown in the mid-Sixties and were a reaction to the ill-fated Fouchet Plan (an attempt to tailor educational facilities to the exact needs of industry), the initial goals of the student movement were simply the improvement of education. By the end of May 1968, the goal was the overthrow of the entire capitalist system in France. What had caused such a monumental shift in the students demands? How did a movement that had its roots in a reaction against the changes suggested by the Fouchet Plan develop into a movement prescribing revolutionary change? The involvement of the highly politicised groupuscules led directly to the ideology of the New Left being absorbed into the student movement, but it is apparent that it was only when they felt the students voice was being taken seriously by the Government that revolutionary dogma appeared on the agenda. Therefore, had it not been for the involvement of the Trade Unions and the millions of striking workers who paralysed the French economy for weeks, it is unlikely that the students voice would have carried so much weight. It has been argued that it was the working class, and not the students, who constituted the real revolutionary movement (Birchall, 1989; Lefebvre, 1969). Other commentators contradict this,

"The great mass of French workers and peasants wanted more bourgeois comforts, not a new social order" (Seale & McConville, 1969, p186),

which suggests that the workers had more material demands, and sought revolution merely as a means to material attainment, displaying an attitude reminiscent of the ‘trade union consciousness' that Lenin believed would undermine revolution in developed countries. Despite the influence of Marxist theory within the student movement, the Marxist theory of revolution is largely redundant as an analytical approach towards this movement. This is due to the fact that the students did not represent a homogeneous economic class with primarily material demands (although such an analysis would undoubtedly be better suited to evaluating the case of the striking workers), and are largely above Marxist or Leninist analysis, as their transient social status is dependent on age and education rather than their class (Singer, 1968, p109). The motives and demands of the students, which I shall discuss below, were far more post-material than Classical Marxist analysis would allow room for, due to necessity of class conflict being economic, and therefore material. Ronald Inglehart, a pioneering post materialist theorist saw the French students as a clear example of post-material values (1977, p267),

"Inglehart's treatment of May 1968 as a prime manifestation of the post-materialist revolution which he believes is sweeping the younger cohorts of Western societies" (Rootes, 1982, p21).

There was a clear gulf between the material concerns of the trade unions and their workers, and the post-material aspirations of the students, and the failure to bridge this chasm ensured that the students did not pose a revolutionary threat to the establishment.

The fourth decisive factor is the lack of coercive force at the disposal of the student movement. The sheer brutality of the police against the students on the streets of the Latin Quarter proved the opposition of the police towards the movement. The loyalty of the army towards De Gaulle, a former General and war hero, was never seriously in doubt, and in any case was strengthened by a secret meeting with commanders (Inglehart, 1977, p269). The reluctance of the students to apply revolutionary tactics (above) stemmed from the fear of armed response from the government, who after all held the balance of coercive force. The student movement's arsenal of cobblestones and the occasional petrol bomb would have been no match for the military's guns and tanks.

The combination of these four factors alone proves that the French student movement of 1968 was not a revolutionary movement, and the application of Charles Tilly's theory further supports this assertion. The initial stage, the period of gradual mobilization, occurred from late 1967 with the discontent at the Fouchet Plan, until the demonstration on the 10th May. It was undoubtedly the reaction of police on the evening of May 10th (the ‘Night of the Barricades') that led to the ‘rapid increase in support' required for stage two. When the workers entered the fray on May 13th, the balance of public support was shifting in favour of the students. However this was to be a false dawn, as despite the workers' backing, this proved to be mainly opportunism on behalf of the trade unions seeking pay increases for the workers. In the third stage of Tilly's revolutionary sequence, unsuccessful attempts are made by the government to suppress the challengers. As discussed above, the reluctance of the student movement to employ deliberately revolutionary tactics allowed the government to use minimal force in containing the dissent, and despite the reported police brutality, this could be viewed as outright suppression. It was not until mid-June, after the peak of the crisis, that many groupuscules were declared illegal and the act of demonstrating was temporarily banned, both as retrospective measures. These were not the actions of a government that felt threatened by revolution, as instead of sending in troops, they were able to feel secure in waiting for the right moment to ensure public support.

The fourth stage involves the revolutionary contenders seizing and exercising control over a portion of government, "a territorial branch, a functional subdivision, a portion of its personnel" (Tilly, 1978, p217). It was not the students but rather a combination of workers, students and peasants who momentarily achieved control over Nantes between May 26th-31st;

"Short-lived and chaotic though it was, this experiment in ‘worker's power' was nevertheless of considerable historical importance. In Nantes the strikers crossed the frontier from protest to revolution" (Seale & McConville, 1968, p163).

This incident was isolated, and never really looked like spreading, least of all to the Latin Quarter considering the unwillingness of the Paris students to occupy government buildings. Stage five of the sequence involves the struggle of the contenders to maintain or expand the control gained in the fourth stage. In the unique case at Nantes, control was relinquished due to the fear of military intervention (Seale & McConville, 1968, p168), therefore there was no struggle. Elsewhere, stages four and five are not applicable, as no other significant control over any branch of government was obtained.

The sequence then stops at stage five in the case of the French Student movement, so the last two stages are obviously unfulfilled. Nationally, and certainly within Paris itself the student movement can only claim to have fulfilled two stages (three if one counts the retrospective suppression), and therefore were not truly revolutionary, the reasons for which are outlined clearly above.

What then of other revolutionary theorists? Returning to the introduction, to apply Peter Calvert's definition, it would be fairer to label the student movement as rebellious rather than revolutionary. In any case, as clearly stated above, the student movement's tactics were not conducive with a revolutionary overthrow of the regime. Marxist theory on revolution has been discussed above, and is irrelevant in this context. One theory that is relevant towards the May events is advanced by Ted Gurr; this stresses a link between political violence and ‘relative deprivation'(1970). For Gurr, the most extreme form of political violence is internal war, which fits with the general description of revolution. He believes the May - June events lay between the stage of turmoil and internal war (p346). In this instance, the lack of military and police support for the students, coupled with the unwillingness of the union leaders to commit to revolution were the decisive factors in preventing internal war,

"Men talked of revolution in France in the spring of 1968, and students thought they had begun one. Given the conditions of French society at that point in time it was unlikely to have developed beyond the stage of turmoil, even less likely to have succeeded had it done so" (Gurr, 1970, p347).

We may then confidently assert that by the application of both Tilly and Gurr's theories, the French student movement was not revolutionary.

Up until now the terms ‘revolution' and ‘revolutionary' have been used exclusively to refer to political phenomena. What of other, more subtle forms of revolutionary change, such as culture? The rhetoric of ‘cultural revolutions' was in vogue in 1968, particularly amongst the Maoist orientated groupuscules in the wake of Mao Tse-Tung's Cultural Revolution (Thackrah, 1993, pp82-84). In China, the movement protested against bureaucracy and and privilege, and inevitably comparisons have been drawn;

"French commentators frequently use the term ‘cultural revolution' to refer to the student revolt... But a cultural revolution, like any other, must succeed otherwise it is only a revolt and the reaction is likely to make things worse than before" (Gretton, 1969, p277).

If the student movement failed to even inspire a cultural revolution, did it register any successes?

The outcome of the May events cannot be described as triumphant for the student movement. De Gaulle accomplished a handsome victory in June's general election; the left-wing in French politics was largely discredited and in disarray; and the promised education reforms were so slow in being implemented that students were still protesting in 1986. Despite the May events being heralded as a new revolutionary hope for the developed world (Singer, 1970), such revolutions have categorically failed to materialize in established capitalist as predicted. Indeed the only triumph on the side of the protesters was the strike settlement achieved by the unions, and this was distinctly non-revolutionary in its unashamed pursuit of ‘bourgeois comforts'.

So in final conclusion, how revolutionary was the French student movement of 1968? We have seen how the students shirked from revolutionary tactics, and how the incompatibility of the demands of the students and workers led to the disunity of the Left. The student movement has also failed the acid test of two revolutionary theories. So what conclusion can one draw from this? Superficially, in words and ideology, the student movement did appear revolutionary, in that they espoused a radical left-wing alternative to the existing regime. In practice however, the students were not only unwilling, in their reluctance, but incapable, with the lack of coercive force, to put these ideas into practice. Actions speak louder than words, and when the push comes to the shove, when the ‘revolutionary games' begin to border on reality, the student movement proved that in essence it was not revolutionary.