Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Perfect example of the pettiness and stupidity of the Left: Socialist paper attacks Royal for not being Left enough, against neo-con Warmonger

Weazl officially says this article contains many stupid points of view

Sarkozy’s electoral victory and the bankruptcy of the French “left”

By Peter Schwarz

The election of right-wing Gaullist politician Nicolas Sarkozy as French president has shocked many people in France and Europe.

One recalls the mood of euphoria two years ago when French voters rejected the European constitution. The same population forced the withdrawal of the unpopular “First Job Contract” (CPE) through a series of protests and demonstrations just one year ago.

At the time various petty bourgeois “left” organisations declared that these movements had rendered the policies of the Chirac government “illegitimate and disavowed.” Now was the time to develop “a common movement which is able to take on the employers directly and question the entire neo-liberal policy” (Statement by the Ligue communiste révolutionnaire [LCR—Revolutionary Communist League])

Now, less than a year later, a man is taking over as president whose right-wing convictions are beyond dispute—he is an ideological ally of US president George W. Bush and the former Spanish Prime Minister José Maria Aznar. Sarkozy wants to revive the values of order, performance and reward, and regards himself as the man to deal once and for all with the heritage of the 1968 protest generation. The international business press has enthusiastically welcomed his election. They expect him to finally dismantle the French welfare state, slash the jobs of many of the country’s five million civil servants, cut pensions, make the labor market more ‘flexible’—and contrary to his predecessors—not give way to pressure from the streets.

How was it possible for this noxious politician to collect 19 million votes and emerge as the victor in an election characterized by an extraordinarily high voter turnout?

For the Socialist Party (PS) and media the answer is clear: French voters are to blame. The latter, so goes the argument, have moved to the right and Socialist Party candidate Ségolène Royal did not follow them fast and far enough. As former Finance Minister Dominique Strauss-Kahn put it on the evening of the election, the Socialist Party had so far missed its chance to carry out a “social-democratic renewal” along the lines of the German Social Democratic Party at its notorious Bad Godesberg conference. In particular, the PS had neglected voters from the “centre”

This explanation ignores social reality and fails to identify the profound social contradictions behind the election result. The “voters of the centre” are an abstraction. The middle classes in France, as elsewhere, are enormously polarized. For a long time they constituted the social glue which bound together social extremes. However, under the effects of the globalization a majority has descended into the proletariat, while a small minority has been able to climb its way upward.

The classic member of the middle class—the craftsmen, farmer, landlord and little businessmen—confronts many of the same problems today as the average worker. The same applies to the urban middle class. The days when a university degree guaranteed a career and a regular income are long gone. Now it is common in France to encounter the temporary worker with a university degree, or the academic who moves from a work placement center to a part-time job and then a short-term contract.

There is no reflection of this social polarization in official politics. While broad sections of workers and young people have been radicalized and have protested time and time against social ills, the Socialist Party and its allies have intervened to sabotage their struggles, spread disappointment and demoralization and thereby paved the way for Sarkozy. His success has far less to do with his own strengths than it does with the bankruptcy of the “left,” its abject inability to present a progressive social alternative.

Strauss-Kahn notwithstanding, the French Socialist Party has long since put its ‘Bad Godesberg conversion’ behind it. It is a bourgeois party, which defends the capitalist order. Into the 1970s, it did this through the means of social compromise, or rather, the promise of social compromise.

Since then, however, pressure from international financial markets and the effects of globalization have wiped out the basis for any policy based on social compromise. Under the presidency of François Mitterrand and the government of Prime Minister Lionel Jospin one promise after another was broken Social gains were slashed, unemployment stagnated at around ten percent, incomes sank and living conditions in the suburbs became increasingly intolerable.

The first to profit was the extreme right National Front led by Jean-Marie Le Pen. With the help of an electoral reform introduced by Mitterrand, his party was regularly able to notch up two-digit election results.

The recent election campaign of Ségolène Royals represented a new low-point for the Socialist Party. Groomed by her public relations advisors, the PS candidate posed as a mixture of a female version of Sarkozy and Alice in Wonderland. She competed with Sarkozy when it came to professions of loyalty to national identity and tough action against juvenile offenders, while at the same time making all sorts of windy promises. She began every second sentence of her speeches with the words “I want”: “I want France tomorrow to be calm country, which believes in itself, where all Frenchmen have a place, and love it,” “I want to take the best from each epoch, to reinvent the France of tomorrow,” and so on.

Royal did not care to explain how her wishes were to be fulfilled. Why should anyone have believed her? 1.6 million unfilled voting cards from a total of 36 million voters indicates that many took part in the election, though they doubtless found it hard to decide between the candidates Some chose to elect Sarkozy, whose program was not attractive, but at least promised change.

According to election analyses Sarkozy received the same number of votes from workers as Royal, with 53 percent of workers in the private sector voting for the Gaullist candidate. He also won 57 percent of those between 25 to 34 years. He had the support of 77 percent of all self-employed, as well as 68 percent of pensioners over the age of 70.

Royal, on the other hand, was only able to win a majority amongst young voters under 24 (60 percent) and those voters who will be directly affected by Sarkozy’s election. In the public sector, where Sarkozy has announced plans for substantial job cuts, 57 percent voted for Royal, who also had the support of 75 percent of unemployed persons. Some 58 percent of students also voted for the SP candidate.

Do the millions of votes from workers and young voters for Sarkozy mean agreement with his program? It would be absurd to draw this conclusion. The election was characterized by a fundamental contradiction. On the hand, there is a broad interest and urge to participate in political life—expressed in the well-attended election meetings and the high voter turnout. On the other hand, the electorate was confronted with two candidates with right-wing bourgeois programs, who differed from one another much more in style than in substance.

The bankruptcy of the official “left” has created a dangerous situation. Sarkozy is the most reactionary politician to assume the post of French president since the end of the Vichy regime in World War II. There can be no doubt that he takes the threats he has made seriously. This is not just bound up with his notorious fiery temperament, but also the enormous pressure being exerted by the employer’s federations and financial circles.

Sarkozy has already announced that he intends to reintroduce the rejected European constitution in a slightly modified form and without a new referendum. On May 17 he is expected to name the former labor minister François Fillon as his prime minister. Fillon’s attempts to ‘reform’ the French pension system four years ago brought millions of public and private sector workers into the streets in protest. Two years later, in his role as education minister, Fillon provoked renewed protests from students.

According to the head of his election campaign team, Claude Guéant, Sarkozy is also contemplating bringing “left” ministers into his cabinet to draw the Socialist Party into his attacks on the working class.

For its part, the working class must prepare for inevitable clashes with Sarkozy and his government by drawing the lessons from the bankruptcy of the Socialist Party and its allies. It must take up the struggle against Sarkosy on the basis of an international socialist program, which proceeds from the incompatibility of the existing forms of capitalist relations with the basic needs and requirements of working people. To this end workers require a new independent socialist party.

The French left radical parties—the LCR and Lutte Ouvrière—systematically seek to prevent such a development. Both organizations called for a vote for Royal in the second round and have now reacted to her defeat in the manner of shocked opportunists. Both act as if nothing significant has happened, refuse to make a political balance sheet of the elections and return to business as usual.

In her statement on the election result, Arlette Laguiller of Lutte Ouvrière blithely declares, “For the next five years the broad masses will have to put up with the presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy and one or more governments, which carry out social policies in line with those of the government of the last five years.” She does not dream of questioning the legitimacy of a presidency who owes his post entirely too the bankruptcy of the official left.

She calls upon her supporters to “Keep their heads up,” and comforts them with the thought that “we would have had to fight if Ségolène Royal had been elected, to ensure that things perhaps changed even a little in our favor. It will be the same with Nicolas Sarkozy and the struggle will be the same.”

On election night Olivier Besancenot (LCR) made the call for a “united front of all social and democratic forces” In the name of unity such an alliance—in reality, the LCR in a pact with the Communist Party, the trade unions and other reliable props of the bourgeois order—would sabotage any struggle against Sarkozy and his government. Any serious confrontation would inevitably develop into a struggle for power and such a struggle is firmly rejected by both LO, LCR and the trade union bureaucracies they support.

Original article posted here.


mantra77 said...

Sarkozy's win over Royale proves that the French still don't get it. If the French move any further to the right they’ll risk missing out on the wonders of advanced multiculturalism we’re experiencing here in the U.S. For example,

more affirmative action discrimination
more no whites allowed race based private scholarships
more race quotas in private hiring
more race norming of employment tests
more separate pool executive hiring
more minority layoff protection
more sensitivity training
more minority promotion networks
more no whites allowed contract set-asides
more minority-only tax breaks

And ever more racist discrimination extracted off the backs of white children for the crime of being white.

Why don't the French understand that increasing anti-white discrimination is good? Ignorance. That's why. Raw, naked ignorance. They need to be educated and taught the three racial theories that we use to promote, justify and legitimise anti-white racial discrimination. This is the only way to cure ignorance.

Can any comrade please translate the racial theories to French so we can start educating them? Here they are:

1. The Unique History of White Evil theory
2. The Unearned White Skin-color Privilege theory
3. The White Majority Deference theory

The Unique History of White Evil Theory

This racial theory holds that “whites cannot evade history”. It is a racial theory because it justifies discrimination against a group based on their (Euro-Christian) ancestry alone irrespective of actual participation or consent (in slavery, holocaust, etc.) and therefore denies innocence as a defense.

The Unearned White Skin-color Privilege Theory

This racial theory holds that “whites are privileged”. It is a racial theory because it justifies discrimination against individuals based on their (Euro-Christian) ancestry alone irrespective of actual status or financial condition and therefore denies innocence as a defense.

The White Majority Deference Theory

This racial theory holds that "majorities must serve minorities". It is a racial theory because its discriminatory logic applies exclusively to whites. For example, suggesting the reverse, that white minorities in South Africa or Detroit should have not equal but superior rights is widely considered insane.

Only when the french have been educated to believe in the racial theories will they understand why it's important for whites to become minorities. Right now they fear becoming minorities because they expect the pro-minority racial extortion coaltion to maximize the racial discrimination against them.

It is therefore imperative to convince them that their children not only deserve racism but that they should welcome it!

Bob's Riddle: All anti-white racists agree that it's ok for whites to become minorities in their own countries. All anti-white racists also agree that a Japanese person who wants to become a minority in his own country is either a traitor or clinically insane. Therefore, what is an anti-white racist? Answer

Da Weaz said...

It seems more of a polemical debate than one rooted in reality. What is the use of your so called "race theories"? They are embodies in no law, but rather interpretations of history that have no legislative or judicial effect. So it is a straw man that you cut down. Similarly, there is no such thing as "anti-White" discrimination in the US jurisprudence, race cannot be used to discriminate against someone, but in only very narrow circumstances even be considered. It becomes quite a stretch to show anti-white discrimination in the United States today, if you want to explain where and how this is done in practice, by citing court cases, you are more than welcome.

But it is simply a feat of self deception to think that there are no privileges attendant to being white, such a the risk of being pulled over by a cop, or sentenced to death or a number of other situations that have been shown to be discriminatory IN FAVOR OF WHITES considering the impact of almost every conceivable variable. Race clearly matters, and does not matter to the disadvantage of whites, generally speaking, but for it.

And it seems quite absurd to talk about the "whiteness" of a place like the United States, that came into existence through the genocide of people who definitely were not quite. That is something worth remembering.

But it is this racialized discourse that naturally has you supportive of Sarkozy. And it is this attitude that causes France to have been beset with riots ever since his election. You may think that this us versus them ideology is somehow noble or natural. But if the rest of the world adopted your similar ideology it would be quite clear that the people you love and cherish would be severely fucked.

Latin America is an example of a continent responding against the sentiments that you have expressed, and now, for the first time in centuries, it is no longer a US plaything.

Royal represented moving beyond the simplistic race ideology that you are espousing, recognizing that this "racial" discourse will not help us survive as a species against the challenges that face us. Your ideology is simply short sighted and counterproductive to life itself, though you may fancy yourself as some valiant race warrior.

We'll see what happens to Mr. Sarkozy, but weazl suggests that his rule in France is simply a maturation process that the French must go through in order to politically mature. Exactly as eight years of the Moron onslaught of the Neo-Cons, Neo-Liberal and Bible Thumpers have crushed those movements in the United States for a generation to come.

The policies are incompetent, hypocritical, and incoherent,as are quite often the men and women advancing them. These policies have been touted by noisy immature children just dying to get in power and prove all the experts wrong. Well, they got in power and showed how absofuckinglutely stupid they were. And it is time for adults to take their rightful place, and tell the morons to STFU.

France, like Sweden, Finland, and perhaps even Germany, need to understand what this neo-liberal disaster really looks like. And if they really delivered what they promise, and those countries citizens lived with the policies rather than the sound bytes, those countries will likely return to the PROGRESSIVE models that underlay their economic success. Sometimes people get bored with success (see Clinton years), and they need that lesson revisited sometimes.

France will learn.

Just like Italy has.