|
Post by Zarpiya on Nov 15, 2005 7:30:16 GMT
As a 'Canadian Communist' you may choose to see the recent disorder in France as evidence of proletarian unrest. This is indeed wishful thinking. The French white working-class community is not especially sympathetic to the plight of the unemployed immigrant community (two different working-class communities obviously indicate a fractured working-class). In-fact it won't be surprising if all this commotion leads to increased working-class support for Jean Marie Le Pen and his neo-fascists...not exactly happy prospects for class solidarity in France I think you will agree? Just a note: "Canadian Communist" with respect to my signature refers to NS; although I have applied for membership to our (sadly disorganized) Communist Party of Canada in real life. The fact that you acknowledged that the "poor unemployed immigrant population" - however fractured from the white French working-class - is, in fact, a working-class shows that there is, indeed, proletarian unrest. I would agree, however that this is a fractured proletariat and that one part is pitted, as it were, against the other. While this split of the proletariat is unfortunate, that does not debunk the fact that there is proletarian unrest. I also would agree that as the "poor unemployed immigrant" working-class riots/rebels against the French "bourgeoisie" (to put it in context with Communism), the white French working-class may sadly fall in line behind Le Pen and his neo-fascism. However, it would not take long for them, under this neo-fascist regime, to realize how terrible it is for their prospects as the working class of France. This will cause, I would think, a drastic shift to the far left by this working class, which may very well cause a separate, real revolution if the riots don't turn out as such. Just as Star City said, the Communist Manifesto, although more than 150 years old, still does have principles that apply in todays society. Part of this is the fact that as long as capitalism exists, so will the plight of the working class - and the imminence of communism. The Bible is all the more applicable than the Communist Manifesto. However, I am not a fundamentalist Christian and I feel that most of the Bible is "interpretive," and definitely not literal. I will not argue that one with you now though, as I rather like the debate we've worked up over the riots and discussion of the Bible would severely derogate from it.
|
|
|
Post by Jako on Nov 15, 2005 10:27:24 GMT
[The fact that you acknowledged that the "poor unemployed immigrant population" - however fractured from the white French working-class - is, in fact, a working-class shows that there is, indeed, proletarian unrest. Well, since one of the main reasons for these riots is the problem of long-term unemployment amongst the immigrant community the rioters clearly do not constitute an organised working-class movement - i.e the kind of movement that a Marxist would see revolutionary potential in. Instead the riots seem to be more the expression of "lumpenproletariat" frustration. Why else would they act in such a stupid and pointless way as to destroy the few facilities their community has (setting fire to schools, day care centres etc)? Which all further reinforces my conclusion that there is no revolutionary potential to be found in these riots. So you think the white working-class will swing to the far-Right and then to the far-Left? Hmm. Seems unlikely to me. Surely one of the essential prerequisites for revolution from a Marxist point of view is working-class solidarity? This is obviously not imminent in today's France!
|
|
|
Post by Jako on Nov 15, 2005 10:41:49 GMT
The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848. I'm not sure it would be especially useful in solving the social tensions of contemporary France. You'll find that economic classes exist now, as they did then. Well, yes! But some things have changed (!!!!); i.e universal suffrage, trade union rights, minimum wages, legislated human rights, an end to mass starvation, welfare states with national health systems and unemployment benefit, housing and education standards, increased working-class affluence and leisure time, popular culture, and much much more. Plus Lenin tried following through 'The Communist Manifesto' in 1917, and whatever your views on the merits of that, the undeniable truth is that revolutionary theories are largely discredited in the West now. So all these factors make the political situation far more complex.
|
|
|
Post by The Red Factions on Nov 16, 2005 16:32:03 GMT
The nature of the methods used by the french youth in revolt are not the one's of a communist revolution. They do however, prove your weak accusation wrong in the fact that revolutionary and violent methods are far from discredited or "out-of-date" as you would suggest. Other posts of yours arrogantly affirmed that these kind of revolts would simply not happen in the West. I am currently studying in France and an adjacent high-school library was torched by youngsters living not so far from the campus. Approximately 5 cars were burnt these past days - while other attempts were botched - which is a lot less when compared to the several hundreds in the much "hotter" areas.
The french youth in revolt happen to be those who have suffered the most from the "reforms" and "progress" brought by politicians like you, Jako. This violence also originates from the repeated failures of so-called "leftist" governments you are very eager to support.
Nobody approves the destruction of daycares or schools. But this is the nature of this type of movement that is engendered by capitalism and it's failures. Between the bourgeoisie supplying the CRS with the equipment to hunt them down and the oppressed youth, there is no question as to where I stand. This suburbian youth however, has no political experience nor are they familiar with the world of work - and bourgeois governments have made sure to exclude their parents as well from it. Our task - and I fully intend to participate to the fullest of my capability in this campaign while I'm here - is to patiently explain and educate the youth and future ( unemployed ) working class in terms of politics and revolutionary methods. We must explain that capitalism means permanent regression at all levels and extend our solidarity to these youth in revolt and invite them to team up with our organisation to seriously prepare a coherent program and struggle against capitalism and it's lackeys.
Amongst those who are fighting the CRS, we will undoubtly recruit a lot of activists willing to actively fight against capitalism and for socialism. We must address them in a language they can understand, and that Jako, is the language of the revolution.
|
|
|
Post by Dobbyniania on Nov 16, 2005 20:32:24 GMT
indeed the people of France are poised for some kind of upheaval. The Eu vote, the riots and the disproportionately popularity of the LCR leader show that something is afoot. People in France still beleive in revolution and it's only a matter of time before this boils over.
|
|
|
Post by Zarpiya on Nov 17, 2005 7:02:48 GMT
Sorry about the delay of this post. I was busied with Real Life obligations. This is in response to your [Jako's] Nov. 15 posts. The unemployment of the immigrant population is directly caused by the racist nature of the society they are in. The discrimination of this "democratic" and "multicultural" France is that which blocks these youths and their families from becoming employed and thus, a part of the "working class." The Communist Manifesto defines "proletariat" as "people in the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live." That does not require them to be actually employed, but merely the ability to be employed - racial discrimination aside. In this case, it is this forced unemployment which unites these people and causes them to search for alternative methods to change the way things are, to create better social circumstances. Regarding the targets of the violence involved in France's unrest, I would direct your attention to this article, written prior to the rioting. It describes the "ghettos" that the immigrant population is forced to live in, as well as addressing the presence of crime in these districts. There is another article written since the rioting began for which the journalist interviewed some of the people in these areas who were rioting. Lastly, the presence of drastically shifting political views is common in places where social unrest is present. The most pertinent example I can think of at the moment would be Germany prior to Hitler's rise to power. Just before Hitler came into power, the governing party was "democratic." This government was unstable, however, in the face of the relentless depression that was striking the world at that time (30's ish). The two other main political powers that were vying for supremacy in Germany were the Communists and the Fascists. These would quite often cause riots as violence would break out between them frequently in the streets. You'll note that most of the people at the time were going either to the far left (Communism) or the far right (Fascism), otherwise, these factions would not have been nearly powerful enough to cause these riots in Germany's streets. Hitler eventually gained the upper hand when he had his men torch the parliament buildings, throwing the government into complete disarray. In the chaotic aftermath, he "graciously volunteered" to govern until the mess could be sorted out. He just happened to never stop "volunteering." As you can imagine, the communists were screwed after that, but that's not the point. The (rather belaboured) point is that in times of crisis or civil unrest, there are often drastic shifts by the populace to the far right, far left, or both. Thus, an electoral victory for Le Pen followed by revolutionary leftist actions by some of the populace is entirely likely to occur in France.
|
|
|
Post by Zarpiya on Nov 18, 2005 7:05:14 GMT
I concede that my example of pre-WWII Germany is a bit exaggerated, but the point I was trying to get across remains that during times of crisis (admitting that this is a much smaller, though no less criminal situation) political shifts - often radical - do occur. I was backing up my argument that if Le Pen were to be elected as a result of this, there is the possibility that he could find the populace shifting once again even under his rule.
I wouldn't exactly call this French government "fully functioning" and, if they are, they aren't functioning very well.
|
|
|
Post by Jako on Nov 18, 2005 11:42:06 GMT
The french youth in revolt happen to be those who have suffered the most from the "reforms" and "progress" brought by politicians like you, Jako. This violence also originates from the repeated failures of so-called "leftist" governments you are very eager to support. It's all my fault! I should have known
|
|
|
Post by Jako on Nov 18, 2005 11:58:33 GMT
But this is the nature of this type of movement that is engendered by capitalism and it's failures. Between the bourgeoisie supplying the CRS with the equipment to hunt them down and the oppressed youth, there is no question as to where I stand. This suburbian youth however, has no political experience nor are they familiar with the world of work - and bourgeois governments have made sure to exclude their parents as well from it. Our task - and I fully intend to participate to the fullest of my capability in this campaign while I'm here - is to patiently explain and educate the youth and future ( unemployed ) working class in terms of politics and revolutionary methods. We must explain that capitalism means permanent regression at all levels and extend our solidarity to these youth in revolt and invite them to team up with our organisation to seriously prepare a coherent program and struggle against capitalism and it's lackeys. Amongst those who are fighting the CRS, we will undoubtly recruit a lot of activists willing to actively fight against capitalism and for socialism. We must address them in a language they can understand, and that Jako, is the language of the revolution. Let's look at the terms you are using here: "movement", "campaign", "solidarity". You are obviously deluding yourself if you think the French riots represented any sort of co-ordinated action with fixed political objectives! They are unemployed, bored, and angry young people who are pissed off and frustrated. How can they possibly constitute a movement or campaign? Once again this is just another example of you using "the language of revolution", i.e meaningless rhetorical crap! I wish you luck in your quest to educate and organise these rioters (obviously they will not require any agitation!). Please let us know how you get on. I'm sure they will really appreciate your great theoretical knowledge and will be eternally grateful for your advice on how to start a socialist revolution. When you say a "lot of activists" what you mean is the usual brigade of middle-class students who travel round Europe looking to start a fight with the police in the name of anti-capitalism. I'm not quite so sure whether the situation needs to be antagonised further; but then again I'm coming from the perspective where finding workable solutions and consensus is a good thing, and shooting the police (or anybody for that matter!) is bad. The riots are indeed indicative of the failure of governments - of both Left and Right - to address the problems of racial inequality in France. There's no denying it, so there's equally no point in trying to portray me as an apologist for failed policies. What is needed is genuine solidarity with the plight of the immigrant communities. That means trade unions campaigning for their rights as workers, and state intervention to improve employment figures by any means necessary, as well as a wider cultural rethink of the issues of race. But as I said please let us all know how successful you are in organising your very first revolution! I'd be interested to find out how you do.
|
|
|
Post by Jako on Nov 18, 2005 12:06:19 GMT
This suburbian youth however, has no political experience nor are they familiar with the world of work - and bourgeois governments have made sure to exclude their parents as well from it. You're saying the French government deliberately carries out policies aimed at excluding immigrants from employment? I'd suggest a more sophisticated suggestion in that the French trade unions are infact unsurprisingly eager to keep their members' jobs and are not at all interested in a more flexible labour market where the immigrants would enjoy increased employment opportunities. The white French worker generally sees the immigrant worker as a threat. This was the basis of my whole argument when I proposed that even from a Marxist point of view there is no revolutionary potential in France, but of course any chance for the same old boring slogans to be expressed is not to be missed! So what you'll need to do, when planning your revolution, is to forge solidarity links between the organised white working-class and the immigrant communities. And how's that going to happen?
|
|
|
Post by Jako on Nov 18, 2005 12:10:00 GMT
Just before Hitler came into power, the governing party was "democratic." This government was unstable, however, in the face of the relentless depression that was striking the world at that time (30's ish). The two other main political powers that were vying for supremacy in Germany were the Communists and the Fascists. These would quite often cause riots as violence would break out between them frequently in the streets. You'll note that most of the people at the time were going either to the far left (Communism) or the far right (Fascism), otherwise, these factions would not have been nearly powerful enough to cause these riots in Germany's streets. Hitler eventually gained the upper hand when he had his men torch the parliament buildings, throwing the government into complete disarray. In the chaotic aftermath, he "graciously volunteered" to govern until the mess could be sorted out. He just happened to never stop "volunteering." As you can imagine, the communists were screwed after that, but that's not the point. The (rather belaboured) point is that in times of crisis or civil unrest, there are often drastic shifts by the populace to the far right, far left, or both. Thus, an electoral victory for Le Pen followed by revolutionary leftist actions by some of the populace is entirely likely to occur in France. This takes me back to GCSE history! There's no need to respond to this, as Comrade Danitoria has adequately expressed why it's....well he says "irrational" but I say irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Star City on Nov 18, 2005 18:42:49 GMT
Should I believe the newspapers when they say the riots are all but over?
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Nov 18, 2005 19:22:38 GMT
I always take everything in the papers with a pince of salt.
|
|
|
Post by Star City on Nov 18, 2005 23:33:04 GMT
I always take everything in the papers with a pince of salt. Does that include Fish & Chips?
|
|
|
Post by D.S. of Soviet Sexy Girls on Nov 19, 2005 1:17:48 GMT
Star City, it's true, things have calm down and it'd be false to speak of riots, right now. Isolated incidents is more correct at the moment.
And I'd like to make a comment to all the ones that are discussing whether France can be submerged by a leftist revolution. I think you should stop day-dreaming, guys. It is quasi-impossible that any revolution start in France in the following decades.
Le Pen will not won 2007 elections. His party won't go further than 25% if you include angry non-ideological votes. The Core of Frontists members is about 15% of the voters. Just take a look at the second turn of 2002 elections, Chirac won by more than 80% !
There are no reason for any revolution to begin. The French government, whatever can be said on its assessments, is working. The State is stable. Rioters represent a very very small minority of the total population and the racial nature of riots is unlikely to lead to any emulation in the working classes...
A last point. If Besancenot is popular (don't exaggerate his popularity however) it's because he's young and pretty new to the political world. People might find him sympathetic, they won't vote for him en mass.
|
|