Did France Demonstrate the FarLeft is All Hot Air?

[Columbia]

OK,

Glad all of you chatted about how the riots in France could become an international movement for revolution.

Now, it looks to me as though things are winding down and, outside of exercising your fingers on keyboards, and perhaps your mouth with others in your RevLeft echo chamber, I really don't see what all the fuss was about, outside of France.

Does anyone believe that this recent 'whatever it was' had international implications.

If so, how?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Glad all of you chatted about how the riots in France could become an international movement for revolution.

Optimism is perhaps a curse of the left, but I'd rather be an optimist than a pessimist.


Now, it looks to me as though things are winding down and, outside of exercising your fingers on keyboards, and perhaps your mouth with others in your RevLeft echo chamber, I really don't see what all the fuss was about, outside of France.

Its quite simple really what all the fuss was about. In a quite blunt way we saw what kind of shit the poor have to put up with under Capitalism and that they will not always accept this shit.


Does anyone believe that this recent 'whatever it was' had international implications.

If so, how?

I don't think it had any "international implications" other than showing the horrors of Capitalism and what it does to the poor. The same way hurricane Katrina vividly showed just how little people mean when profit margins are at stake.

[Columbia]

And France could have avoided all of this by closing its doors to the immigration in the first place, yes?

So, once you allow people to enter into your nation, you have a duty to change your economic system for their benefit, huh?

What a wacked out view you have.

If what you say is the truth, France could have said no to their emigration and saved itself a lot of headache.

[Amusing Scrotum]

And France could have avoided all of this by closing its doors to the immigration in the first place, yes?

Not really because then the poor and disenfranchised would just have a different colour. They would be white Frenchmen and women.


So, once you allow people to enter into your nation, you have a duty to change your economic system for their benefit, huh?

Most of these people are from former French colonies and these countries were completely wrecked by the colonial powers. I think theres a degree of responsibility required here, don't you?


What a wacked out view you have.

Cheers.


If what you say is the truth, France could have said no to their emigration and saved itself a lot of headache.

As I said there would still be poor people who were pissed off, its just they would be a different colour.

Actually as a point of reference there were many white working class people involved in the riots, they didn't emigrate so what do you propose is the solution to stop them rioting?

[Columbia]

My main point is, "Where's the revolution?" What did they settle for? What was the deal?

probably zilch.

And re: responsibility for former colonies. Zero. None. We got nothing from Great Britain and thank God we didn't.

All former colonies can stop whining, get off their assess and build. If it's a socialism they build, good for them. But they don't need ANYBODY!

[Amusing Scrotum]

My main point is, "Where's the revolution?" What did they settle for? What was the deal?

probably zilch.

Your right they did get "zilch" but I don't get what you are saying, do you think this was a revolution? .....because it wasn't, it was a riot and as much as we would have liked it to turn into a full blooded revolution, the truth is there is little chance that would have happened.


And re: responsibility for former colonies. Zero. None. We got nothing from Great Britain and thank God we didn't.

All former colonies can stop whining, get off their assess and build. If it's a socialism they build, good for them. But they don't need ANYBODY!

Strange comment on your part. This implies that all these people in these colonies are just not to bothered with their situation, that they're just to darn lazy to sort themselves out. If you look more closely these former colonies you will see they are still dominated by foreign capital and investment which has been disastrous for their development.

The difference between America and many of the former African colonies is that America actually managed to gain meaningful independence, mainly thanks to French help. America was then free to guide its own economy, set its own tariffs, develop a rounded economy. (The British Steel example comes to mind.) Where as a lot of "former" colonies are still being systematically raped by foreign capital.

By all means promote independence and a lack of responsibility, but realise that this means the foreign capital must to "fuck off." Anything less and the independence you are left with isn't worth the paper its printed on.

[Publius]

Optimism is perhaps a curse of the left, but I'd rather be an optimist than a pessimist.

:D

Am I the only one who finds this statement hilarious?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Am I the only one who finds this statement hilarious?

What do you find so hilarious?

[Columbia]

Say fuck off to foreign capital which makes a nation a slave to greater powers and is not my idea of capitalism;

Say hello to fair dealings and commerce with other nations which is my idea of capitalism.

Germany and Japan and France and the UK deal with us as independent nations. As it should be.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Say fuck off to foreign capital which makes a nation a slave to greater powers and is not my idea of capitalism;

Massive protectionism is how just about all of todays major Capitalist powers developed.

Also what "greater powers" does a nation make itself a slave to when it removes foreign capital.


Say hello to fair dealings and commerce with other nations which is my idea of capitalism.

Yet this doesn't happen now, does it? ......the major Capitalist powers all rape the third world and leave it too rot. Tell me how you propose to change this?


Germany and Japan and France and the UK deal with us as independent nations. As it should be.

Thats because their in the "club," they get to sit at the cool kids table, the third world is not allowed this privilege.

It would be useful if you declared what development model you propose for the third world?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 06:10 PM
And France could have avoided all of this by closing its doors to the immigration in the first place, yes?

So, once you allow people to enter into your nation, you have a duty to change your economic system for their benefit, huh?

What a wacked out view you have.

If what you say is the truth, France could have said no to their emigration and saved itself a lot of headache.
France could have avoided all this by not having an unofficial dual citizenship which had created an ethnic underclass in France. You argument is like saying the L.A. riots could have been avoided if the US deported all blacks.

In the neighborhood where rioting started, there is 40% unmeployment compared to 10% in the rest of the country.

As far as "shutting its doors to immigration": most of the rioters are the children and grandchildren of immigrents, not immigrents themselves, so clearly immigration is not the cause of unrest, but the treatment and miserable conditions for people of North African desent.


So, once you allow people to enter into your nation, you have a duty to change your economic system for their benefit, huh?

What a wacked out view you have.What a racist view you have. And yes, if you (meaning the ruling class of france) want to have people come into your country to work, they should be treated equally, not restricted to the worst jobs and subject to discrimination.

Look at the origin of the parents of these rioters and most of them came from former French colonies in Africa. After the end of WWII, France encouraged immigration because they needed laborers in the post-war boom. People in French colonies were considered "french subjects" and allowed to enter france. But clearly, France dosn't treat all citizens equally (hence the higher unemployment and less acsess to jobs and education) and this has led to the explosion of rage and frustration we have seen in the last week and a half.

[Jimmie Higgins]

My main point is, "Where's the revolution?" What did they settle for? What was the deal?
Where's the revolution? Well I don't think a spontanious riot alone could ever bring about revolution and this was a debate on the posts about the riots in France. Buring cars does not cause workers to be able to take over factories and offices and put themselves in power.

Riots may happen as a revolution approaches, but most of the radical organizations in France have doen little organizing in North African communities. Some radicals and unionists did form an allience during the last french election to oppose the anti-immigrent proto-fascist candidate Le Pen. If thoes groups can organize in these neighborhoods and build an new immigrent rights struggle, then there could be a movement (though not as flashy as kids torchig cars is to TV cameras) that could make some real changes.


And re: responsibility for former colonies. Zero. None. We got nothing from Great Britain and thank God we didn't.The American colonists gained a shit-load of land from revolution, but there were still major economic problems following the American revolution in addition to another attempt by the British to regain some land and power in 1812.


All former colonies can stop whining, get off their assess and build. If it's a socialism they build, good for them. But they don't need ANYBODY!You mean like when the Belgin governmnet left the congo and the more left-wing president Lumumba was imprisoned and replaced by Mubutu with the help of the CIA and old belgium rulers?

Yes, former colonies don't need any "help" from thier former rulers, certaintly.

[Columbia]

I stand by what I wrote above, and the expansion of land after the Treaty of Paris, 1781, did not make us an independent power. It was our industry, the literal definition of that meaning our drive, spirit, ambition.

I realize that your politics don't allow you to believe that, but there you are.

[Xvall]

Optimism is perhaps a curse of the left, but I'd rather be an optimist than a pessimist.

Curious. Just wondering why? I'm the other way around.

[Publius]

What do you find so hilarious?

Your statement about being optimisitic was optimisic in and of itself.

It would be like me saying "I would be a pessimist, but what's the fucking point'?

[Amusing Scrotum]

I stand by what I wrote above, and the expansion of land after the Treaty of Paris, 1781, did not make us an independent power. It was our industry, the literal definition of that meaning our drive, spirit, ambition.

"Our drive, spirit, ambition." :lol:

Are you honestly saying the third world is poor because they don't have America's drive, spirit and ambition?

By your definition I assume that you think the Europeans who came to America made it great, because of their great will and sacrifice and that those lazy fuckers in the third world are to blame for their own problems.

This is especially interesting as America was built on the back of slaves, you know those lazy Africans' who can't be bothered to do make their countries "great."

Your views are really strange and I can't really understand what position you are coming from. At the moment it seems like a race based standpoint, that basically says that those dark people in the third world are incapable of achieving the "greatness" of the white man.


I realize that your politics don't allow you to believe that, but there you are.

Our politics don't allow us to "believe" anything. We're not religious crackpots, we do our best to examine the world using the tools that Marx gave us and then come to conclusions based on the evidence. We don't believe in any great "myths" we simply try to analyse the world to the best of our abilities based on the evidence we are presented with.


Curious. Just wondering why? I'm the other way around.

I was referring to how there seem to be a strange amount of excitement about something as simple as a riot. Generally I suppose we are pessimists but we do have the tendency to get a bit excited at times about trivial things.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 10:06 AM


What do you find so hilarious?

Your statement about being optimisitic was optimisic in and of itself.

It would be like me saying "I would be a pessimist, but what's the fucking point'?
yes, and he never denied being an optimist. so what's so funny?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 10:47 PM
I stand by what I wrote above, and the expansion of land after the Treaty of Paris, 1781, did not make us an independent power. It was our industry, the literal definition of that meaning our drive, spirit, ambition.

I realize that your politics don't allow you to believe that, but there you are.
Of corse land didn't make the colonies independant, people fighting against colonial rule did and this is the same with many other former colonies. But land was a major factor in the early years of the country as the government had more land than money. Wern't people promised of given land for fighting the revolution?

As for becoming a power, that didn't happen until after the Civil war. But land was quite important to the early US. Thomas Jefferson imagined that the republic would be a nation of yeomen farmers. In the southern colonies it was definately land and slavery which allowed the slaveocracy to gain economically. Cotton needed the expansion of terrirtory since cotton quickly strips the land of nutrients causing the land to become increasingly infirtile.

As for being an industrial power, ironically (considering your viewpoint), it was a massive influx of immigrents from Ireland and German states that provided the intitial labor forces needed to become an industrial giant.

[Capitalist Imperial]

I just don't know haw many much more evidence we need to concede that France is totally incapable of defending itself.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 11 2005, 11:55 PM
I just don't know haw many much more evidence we need to concede that France is totally incapable of defending itself.
The French couldn't hold onto Algeria or Vietnam and have riots and strikes. Is this your evidence?

The US also couldn't hold onto Vietnam and possibly will lose in Iraq. THe British couldn't hold onto many of their colonies and also has interal unrest.

This dosn't proove anything about France. All it shows is that even the biggest powers in the world can not use military might alone to keep their systems of imperialim together forever or to pave over internal contradictions of their rule.

[black magick hustla]

I don't think even the capitalists in this board can take someone with a ronald reagan idolatry complex seriously! :lol:

Reaganists are like stalinists, they can only be taken seriously between themselves.

Especially when he was a christian fundamentalist who commited many international atrocities.

What kind of person has the nick capitalist imperialist anyway?

[Columbia]

America was built on the back of slaves

Total bullshit.

Slavery did not make America strong. It set us back decades, and it set the South back over 150 years.

A portion of American wealth was made through slavery, but hardly its inferstructure or lasting achievements.

It took the achievements of ALL of our citizens, even those who are the decendants of slaves.

But this facination the radical left has that America is kicking back today because of slavery is a joke.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Total bullshit.

Slavery did not make America strong. It set us back decades, and it set the South back over 150 years.

A portion of American wealth was made through slavery, but hardly its inferstructure or lasting achievements.

It took the achievements of ALL of our citizens, even those who are the decendants of slaves.

But this facination the radical left has that America is kicking back today because of slavery is a joke.

You know instead of taking one part of my post out of context and answering it, you could answer all of my points.

Also I did not say America is sitting back today because of slaves, I said it was built on slaves of all colours. It was helped in this respect, as it conducted the biggest act of theft in history when it stole the land of the Native Americans.

Stalin's Russia (which developed more quickly) was more humane in its development than America and that is saying a lot.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Gravedigger+Nov 12 2005, 12:39 AM--> (Gravedigger @ Nov 12 2005, 12:39 AM)
Capitalist [email protected] 11 2005, 11:55 PM
I just don't know haw many much more evidence we need to concede that France is totally incapable of defending itself.

This dosn't proove anything about France. All it shows is that even the biggest powers in the world can not use military might alone to keep their systems of imperialim together forever or to pave over internal contradictions of their rule. [/b]

The French couldn't hold onto Algeria or Vietnam and have riots and strikes. Is this your evidence?

French indochina was quite a debaucle for the French militarily. The US in vietnam was actually pretty successful militarily,, but at home it was quite unpopular. Lest, you are somewhat correct, but 'nam was pretty much an isolated error, and a poltiical defeat. Add to your list of franco-futility an uninspired resistance to the Nazis.


The US also couldn't hold onto Vietnam and possibly will lose in Iraq. The British couldn't hold onto many of their colonies and also has interal unrest.

See above re: Vietnam. I believe that history will show that the US will hold onto Iraq and make it a democratic proxy for American interests in the region, thus yielding a benefit to the world. The British also have some isolated failures, but not an aggregate incompetence like that dsplayed by the French.


This do(e)sn't proove anything about France.

Come on, armchair, can't we at least be reasonable here?



All it shows is that even the biggest powers in the world can not use military might alone to keep their systems of imperialim together forever or to pave over internal contradictions of their rule.


And I would be hard pressed to believe that modern france could achieve victory even without these hinderences.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 01:43 AM

Reaganists are like stalinists, they can only be taken seriously between themselves.


What kind of person has the nick capitalist imperialist anyway?

I don't think even the capitalists in this board can take someone with a ronald reagan idolatry complex seriously! :lol:

You obviously don't know capitalists



Especially when he was a christian fundamentalist who commited many international atrocities.

He was hardly a fundamentalist. He wasn't even a strong Christian. Most of his religious commentary was lip service to a big part of his constituency.



Reaganists are like stalinists, they can only be taken seriously between themselves.

Reagan conservatives are taken much more seriously today than a communist of any strain.



What kind of person has the nick capitalist imperialist anyway?

Well, call me crazy, but it would be a capitalist citizen of an empire. It is quite apt, sir.

[Publius]

yes, and he never denied being an optimist. so what's so funny?

"I would rather" is an optimistic statement.

He's saying he wants to be optimistic, which is optimistic in and of itself.

It seems circular to me.

By saying he WANTS to be optimisitic he's BEING optimisitic.

Get it?

[Korol Aferist]

Well to tell you the truth...

Both sides were unreasonable.


France doesn't know how to handle immigrants and their policies towards them are quite... wrong... They should of come to a country where they know how to handle them and had handle them for a long time to help them out like U.S. and the U.K.
plus for anyone France wasn't a great place to move to for improving life...

Arab riots of France was unreasonable; They could of done something else... One thing I like about the U.S. that anyone could take anyone or any thing to court and have a chance at winning and I think they were able to do this in France but I'm not sure because I never been there nor do I ever want to be there.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Come on, armchair, can't we at least be reasonable here?

Huh?

I didn't even make that comment.


Well, call me crazy, but it would be a capitalist citizen of an empire. It is quite apt, sir.

The "Empire." :lol:

Someones been watching Star Wars too much.


"I would rather" is an optimistic statement.

He's saying he wants to be optimistic, which is optimistic in and of itself.

It seems circular to me.

By saying he WANTS to be optimisitic he's BEING optimisitic.

Get it?

Oh bugger off and stop being so bloody pedantic. :angry: :P

[Publius]

I was trying to be light, but my superiour wit clearly is out of place here.

:D

[Amusing Scrotum]

I was trying to be light, but my superiour wit clearly is out of place here.

:cool:

[Free Palestine]

Guardian: "The inequalities that blazed in France will soon scorch the world (http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1656922,00.html)"

"The inequalities that blazed in France will soon scorch the world: The tensions between a dispossessed underclass and the comfortable majority have only been repressed, not solved"

[Guerrilla22]

The movement that happened in France a couple weeks ago didn't have anything to do with the left, especially not the so called "far left."

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 09:18 AM
I was trying to be light, but my superiour wit clearly is out of place here.


I prostrate myself before your superlative intellect; perhaps you should consider using Lenin, with his profound sagacity, as an inspiration, and form a vanguard party to overthrow the government and create a minarchist state?

Or perhaps you could cut down on that stupendous ego of yours?

:D

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 12 2005, 04:11 AM


Reagan conservatives are taken much more seriously today than a communist of any strain.


Really? Reagans mind was so addeled he could not tell his real life from the parts in the movies he played. How can anybody who follows that deranged boob be taken seriously. Reagan always taking the side of those most able to protect themselves. A man who acted tough but was only acting a part as a charismatic leader. In reality he was just a pawn of the corporate elite, a bully who talked tough but only attacked the weak. I hope Ronnie is chocking on some shit flavored jellybeans in hell where he belongs.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Originally posted by Atlas Swallowed+Dec 4 2005, 06:43 AM--> (Atlas Swallowed @ Dec 4 2005, 06:43 AM)
Capitalist [email protected] 12 2005, 04:11 AM


Reagan conservatives are taken much more seriously today than a communist of any strain.


Really? Reagans mind was so addeled he could not tell his real life from the parts in the movies he played. How can anybody who follows that deranged boob be taken seriously. Reagan always taking the side of those most able to protect themselves. A man who acted tough but was only acting a part as a charismatic leader. In reality he was just a pawn of the corporate elite, a bully who talked tough but only attacked the weak. I hope Ronnie is chocking on some shit flavored jellybeans in hell where he belongs. [/b]
Maybe amongst rich old religious guys and yokels Reagan maniacs are taken more seriously, but in the real world people hate Reaganists.