|
Post by The Red Factions on Nov 19, 2005 1:28:32 GMT
You seem to think as if though what is happening in France is no more than a bunch of kids from an estate burning a few cars and fading away into oblivion. I say you are disconnected and deluded.
The riots have affected over 200 districts in France, thousands of cars have been burned and several hundreds of shops have been burned or vandalised in France. The CRS are overwhelmed and exhausted by the riots.
Despite the major flaws of this movement due to the lack of political experience within their ranks and lack of organisation - it is definitly a movement campaigning for improved living conditions and a manifestation of anger, hate and a willingess to tear down the established order. The flaws that I have listed above will inevitably lead to the "re-establishment of order" and the riots will eventually fade away.
Am I saying that the working class of France will march down on the streets and make a revolution happen tommorrow? Of course not but this merely highlights your lack of any understanding whatsoever when it comes to socialist politics. One step at the time - in particular in light of the 2007 elections. We must first educate the working class and patiently explain to every person the flaws inherent in the system and the tools at our disposal with which we can fight it. We must move to reclaim the leftist roots of the PS in France and oust the opportunistic leadership, organise and unite the genuine Marxist-Leninist Parties in France who have grown ever more popular and learn to think in the long-term. We must fight the Front National and Le Pen by whatever means necessary and unite the working class, regardless of colour - which can only be achieved through proper education. Through the weapons of mass demonstration and strike - we can excerce pressure. But we must first organise the masses and reach out to those who have been shoved aside by the state and who have suffered the harshest consequences of the governmental policies.
|
|
|
Post by D.S. of Soviet Sexy Girls on Nov 20, 2005 15:01:29 GMT
The opportunists would be ejected from the PS when Fabius, Emmanueli or De Montebourg and their supports would have left the party.
|
|
|
Post by The Red Factions on Nov 21, 2005 19:23:44 GMT
Hehe - this gives me a good excuse to bring the debate we had in French but that I never bothered replying too. Since the PS is by definition an opportunistic party, which politicians are you referring to exactly? Fabius & company?
|
|
|
Post by D.S. of Soviet Sexy Girls on Nov 22, 2005 23:03:30 GMT
Of course I'm referring to Fabius & Compagny. He, and all the ones that chose to went against the European Constitution, only used it as a tool to take more power in the party and openly lied to the people. I clearly remember Mr Fabius speaking about a supposed "B plan" and that negotiations will resume as soon as France reject the Constitution. Could you tell me where we're on that subject now ? The constitution is dead, what is in my opinion a great step back for European construction...
Fortunately, their motions (Fabius' one and the other one, the NPS) failed to win the support of PS members.
And, you still have to explain clearly why the PS is supposed to be opportunistic... Following a social-democratic credo is not opportunism, as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
Ketoprofen
Defence Forces
Ketoprofen - The Proletariat Coalition
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by Ketoprofen on Nov 23, 2005 8:28:38 GMT
As a social-democrat, I too think that the PS is an opportunistic party that has moved to the right to win more votes. It's more of some sort of centrist party with many similarities to the right. That's why voter apathy has been rather high in France, the left has grown so corrupted that there is no big difference between the traditional left and the traditional right.
|
|
|
Post by The Red Factions on Nov 24, 2005 17:22:29 GMT
The french PS is an opportunistic party because it conducts rightist policies under the guise of "social-democracy". They can't even be considered as a genuine social-democratic party anymore. Just a few weeks ago, Hollande refused to motion for Sarkozy's sacking!
The french nation massively rejected the Constitution. For all your attempts to blame it on the leftist movement within the PS and the genuine left - fact remains that this Constitution was not in the interest of France and it's working class and nor was it coherent given the political situation in Europe and the political differences within it. France has put a big stick in the wheels of liberal Europe and we should seize this as an opportunity to force it on the right track. It was hardly a step back, merely a temporary halt.
The NPS is a step in the right direction to reclaim the leftist roots of the PS, although not by far a lasting solution given it's leaders pussyfooting. A first - however small - step nevertheless. The amount of careerists within the PS and it's opportunistic leadership who refuses to actually oppose the policies of the government and act as befits an opposition will make it harder. Further to this, the french population in general has started to view with suspicion the PS which will give them more winds in the sail.
Conditions in France are ripe for a radicalisation of the electorate.
|
|
|
Post by Star City on Nov 24, 2005 18:51:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by D.S. of Soviet Sexy Girls on Nov 24, 2005 22:26:58 GMT
I have changed the order of your post for the sake of continuous answer. The french PS is an opportunistic party because it conducts rightist policies under the guise of "social-democracy". They can't even be considered as a genuine social-democratic party anymore. Just a few weeks ago, Hollande refused to motion for Sarkozy's sacking! Rightist policies ? Uh, I don't know on what you base your argument. It is true that some members of the party are leaning toward "securitarism" to answer the Banlieues' crisis, but they are far from a majority. And I also fail to see why do not motioning for Sarkozy's sacking is rightist. As : 1. It is unlikely it ever pass, the UMP has the majority in the Assembly on its own. 2. He's so popular in the opinion (more than 60% favorable when Besancenot, for example, lie around 23-25%). It do not make a big difference to motion a sacking or not. At least to me. Listening to all the proposal an the way the PS criticize government's actions and plans, I wouldn't say they are rightist. But it's probably because you are more on the side of Mr Besancenot and his clique that you said such things. The NPS is a step in the right direction to reclaim the leftist roots of the PS, although not by far a lasting solution given it's leaders pussyfooting. A first - however small - step nevertheless. The amount of careerists within the PS and it's opportunistic leadership who refuses to actually oppose the policies of the government and act as befits an opposition will make it harder. Further to this, the french population in general has started to view with suspicion the PS which will give them more winds in the sail. Conditions in France are ripe for a radicalisation of the electorate. Opportunistic leadership ? Hollande is one of the longest lasting General Secretary of the Party, he was made by Mr Jospin when that latter left to took his seat in Matignon, I don't see how he'd be opportunistic that way. He's the one that made the compromise that "saved" the Party at the Congress. Well, you said the PS does not oppose to the Government. Then what is voting against almost all bills proposed by it ? Viewing the PS with suspicion ? Perhaps for some, but that must be because the party is/was quite divided and didn't presented yet a precise and credible alternative for the Right. It will be coming now, according to what was said during the Congress. And, when you speak about radicalisation of voters, I assume you imply they will turn to the hard-Left. That is false, they will turn to the Right. Sarkozy is very popular, and his popularity only increase over time even with his harsh comments. He offers security to people, and they like that. That is not guaranteed that he will bring more security to them, but a least they believe him and so, more and more people from the popular/medium classes are turning to Sarkozy. It's unlikely that Mr Le Pen's supports increase too much as the party is too extremist for most of the population. The french nation massively rejected the Constitution. For all your attempts to blame it on the leftist movement within the PS and the genuine left - fact remains that this Constitution was not in the interest of France and it's working class and nor was it coherent given the political situation in Europe and the political differences within it. France has put a big stick in the wheels of liberal Europe and we should seize this as an opportunity to force it on the right track. It was hardly a step back, merely a temporary halt. Of course I do blame the "leftist" movements within the PS and the genuine Left. They are responsible for the defeat, responsible for a grave error. The word "massively" always makes me laugh ! That is gross journalistic exaggeration. 55% is not a tidal-wave, as I've heard, that is majority yes, but not a "massive" vote. The constitution was in the best interest of all Europeans, workers or not ! It would have created a more logical, smooth system which would have managed policies on a more efficient basis than currently. It would also have offered to each country the right number of votes, so the accurate weight, in the Parliament. That was one of the good things in the treaty, and the first that came to me at the moment. What's happening now ? France lost a great deal of influence in the highest spheres of European power and Mr Barroso put his men/women in crucial seats. And I suppose you know Mr Barroso is what we can call an "anglo-saxon liberal". Did you wanted that ? Forcing Europe to move into the right direction would be very difficult now, even with the support of all (northern) Social-democrats (that supported the Constitution and didn't understood that the PS was so divided on the issue).
|
|
Ketoprofen
Defence Forces
Ketoprofen - The Proletariat Coalition
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by Ketoprofen on Nov 26, 2005 11:11:11 GMT
The PS is not a real opposition party. I like to think of myself as a social-democrat and you have to look at the swedish model to find the real thing.
Holland is basically on the rightist scale. He has refused to abrogate laws passed by the rightist governments, supports Sarkozy and also supported the EU constitution! Le Pen is likely to loose votes in favour of Sarkozy, while the PS is likely to loose theirs in favour of the far left.
And 55 % majority is a massive victory in terms of RL referendums. Landslide victory would be something above 66 %. EU today sucks but the rejection of the Constitution sends a strong signal to politicians who might want to step back for awhile and think of their own citizens rather than focusing on the well-being of corporations and big business in the EU. France doesn't like this development long advocated by the PS and rejected it. The PS's leadership is not longer representative of the wishes of the french voters and should have stepped down after having been clearly asked to take a hike with the NON! It seems that the only people who really care about the so-called "influence" in Europe are politicians, not your common worker or citizen. Tough, deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by Jako on Dec 8, 2005 14:32:10 GMT
I wonder how the attempts to educate the French working-class in revolutionary theory and tactics are going?
|
|
Ketoprofen
Defence Forces
Ketoprofen - The Proletariat Coalition
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by Ketoprofen on Dec 9, 2005 12:56:47 GMT
I've seen this happen before. When you can't produce good arguments, you start taking cheap shots with no real substance. But Jako, since you're so much better than everybody in here, why don't you tell us a bit about how great Blair is and all the "progress" that was only made possible thanks to him and Marge?
|
|
|
Post by Jako on Dec 9, 2005 14:13:37 GMT
I was making very good arguments, thankyou very much! Someone suggested the riots were indicative of an imminent proletarian revolution, and I demonstrated that even from a Marxist perspective this clearly was not true. Someone also suggested that the riots were evidence of a coherent campaign, and I still have not seen any substantive arguments to back this up.
My 'cheap shot' was referring to Red Factions informing us that "I fully intend to participate to the fullest of my capability in this campaign while I'm here". In light of the debate here I was wondering whether he could update us. Was that really so unreasonable a question?
If you want to start a new thread on the benefits (or lack of) brought by Britain's Labour government I'm happy to start another discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Dec 10, 2005 21:08:12 GMT
No unfortunately, also didnt watch that one about Russian leaders that I was looking forward to seeing.
|
|
|
Post by Star City on Dec 10, 2005 21:18:14 GMT
RM, are you talking about Russian Godfathers on BBC2? I watched it, but it wasn't what I thought it would be about (since the adverts for it suggested it would be looking at Putin). There was a good bit where Berezovsky (sp?) flew into Latvia for a few hours and the government almost collapsed
|
|
|
Post by Star City on Dec 10, 2005 23:58:10 GMT
Yeah, it was about Russian oligarchs. As I said, I thought it was going to be a documentary on Putin (there's something about Putin... I believe there was a film with that title ). I fell asleep in the last 10 minutes, not because it was boring, I was just sleep deprived
|
|