Jump to content

International News Thread


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Gorn said:

The Le Pen family remind me of the Lannisters. I can imagine both Marine and Marion nodding while reading Machiavelli's The Prince.

Somehow I doubt reading is very high up the Le Pens spare time activities. Wasn't Marine's mum doing some nudes for the playboy to get back with Jean-Marie for screwing her over at the divorce settlement or something?

Anyway.

@Rippounet

I read in the Spiegel print edition an article about Macron and his mess in France. To my delight it is in English on their homepage now. So is this (in your view) a fair way of looking at it, or is it way too kind on Macron. Spiegel

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I read in the Spiegel print edition an article about Macron and his mess in France. To my delight it is in English on their homepage now. So is this (in your view) a fair way of looking at it, or is it way too kind on Macron. Spiegel

I'm not sure what you mean by kind. Certainly the Spiegel doesn't clearly say that Macron is trying to implement a neo-liberal agenda, but the analyses in the article are excellent imho. In fact, I'm rather happy they fall so close to my own:

Here Guilluy describes the uncertainty I was trying to explain earlier:

Quote

In his 2014 book "La France périphérique (Peripheral France)," Christophe Guilluy describes how geographic segregation leads to social fault lines. These days, Guilluy's ideas are being widely discussed. The day after Macron's election victory in May 2017, he was sitting in a café on Place de la République, an angular man in his early fifties. He said, unmoved, "This time, Macron won, but the next time it could be Le Pen or another populist." He explained that it was as if the French were on tectonic plates and the weight of their society was constantly shifting from one side to the other. "Everything could capsize at any time."

And here is Rouban explaining that Macron has tried to shift politics away from the old left-right divide:

Quote

"Macron doesn't have any backing among the populace. Those who want what he wants are very few," Rouban says. Macron's political base of people who really share his opinion, he adds, is only 6 percent.

The president, Rouban says, is a liberal in two senses. Macron isn't just an economic liberal, but also a person who wants a liberal society, and Rouban argues that this doesn't jibe with France's traditional political fault lines. If a person is economically liberal in France, he says, then they belong to the right. But if a person is in favor of an open society and voted for gay marriage, for a tolerant immigration policy, they see the economy as, at most, a necessary evil that needs to be kept on the shortest possible leash by the government. Rouban argues that Macron's philosophy is based on a false notion that the traditional ways of thinking, the division between left and right, are outmoded.

"The French don't want any Hartz IV reforms," says Rouban, referring to the slashing of the German welfare system carried out by former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of the center-left Social Democrats. "We are not as emancipated as the Germans or the Danes. We believe in the government and in public service."

Of course I want to agree with Rouban that the French don't want German-style reforms. I think he's overstating his case however. First 6% as Macron's base seems low, I would say it's as much as double that. Second, there are many on the traditional right who would be happy with German-style reforms but who dislike Macron's social liberalism - and style. The paradox is that while the "traditional ways of thinking" are not completely outmoded yet, there has certainly been an evolution. It's just that Macron is moving way too fast.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I felt the overall narrative in the article took away some of Macron's agency (and thus responsibility) for the mess he's in right now. That's what I meant with being a bit too kind.

Oh, sure. But underlining Macron's responsibility would indirectly mean calling TINA (there is no alternative - to neo-liberalism) into question. That's not something you generally find in major publications like the Spiegel (or only in OP-EDs).
I'm so used to this type of subtle partiality that it doesn't register anymore. If I want some deeper analysis my go-to reference is always Le Monde Diplomatique. French "heterodox" (i.e. anti-neo-liberal ^^) economist Frédéric Lordon wrote a nice article on the recent events for instance (in French, I'm afraid):
https://blog.mondediplo.net/fin-de-monde
 

Quote

Depuis les grèves de 1995, la conscience de ce que les médias censément contre-pouvoirs sont des auxiliaires des pouvoirs, n’a cessé d’aller croissant. Du reste, ils ont œuvré sans discontinuer à donner plus de corps à cette accusation à mesure que le néolibéralisme s’approfondissait, mettait les populations sous des tensions de plus en plus insupportables, qui ne pouvaient être reprises que par un matraquage intensif des esprits, avant qu’on en vienne à celui des corps.

[...]

Le déni de la violence sociale est cette forme suprême de violence à laquelle Bourdieu donnait le nom de violence symbolique, bien faite pour que ses victimes soient réduites à merci : car violentées socialement, et méthodiquement dépouillées de tout moyen d’y résister « dans les formes » puisque tous les médiateurs institutionnels les ont abandonnées, elles n’ont plus le choix que de la soumission intégrale ou de la révolte, mais alors physique, et déclarée d’emblée odieuse, illégitime et anti-démocratique — normalement le piège parfait. Vient cependant un moment où la terreur symbolique ne prend plus, où les verdicts de légitimité ou d’illégitimité volent à leur tour, et où la souffrance se transforme chimiquement en rage, à proportion de ce qu’elle a été niée. Alors tout est candidat à y passer, et il ne faudra pas s’en étonner : permanences de députés, banques, hôtels particuliers, préfectures, logiquement plus rien n’est respecté quand tout a failli.

A quick translation (mostly using google translate, I'm afraid I really don't have time to do a proper translation of such an elaborate text):

Quote

Since the 1995 strikes, the awareness that the supposedly countervailing media are auxiliaries to power has been growing. Moreover, they worked tirelessly to give more weight to this accusation as neoliberalism deepened and put the people under a tension that became increasingly unbearable, which could only be seen as an intense blitzing on people's spirits, before becoming one on their bodies.
[...]
The denial of social violence is that supreme form of violence to which Bourdieu gave the name of symbolic violence, done so that its victims are reduced to mercy: socially abused, and methodically deprived of any means of resisting as they "should" since all the institutional mediators have abandoned them, they have no choice but to submit in their entirety or revolt, but then physically, and declared from the outset to be odious, illegitimate and undemocratic - normally the perfect trap. However, there comes a time when symbolic terror no longer takes hold, when the verdicts of legitimacy or illegitimacy no longer matter, and when the suffering is transformed chemically into rage, in proportion to what has been denied. So everything is potentially a target, and we should not be surprised: representatives' surgeries, banks, private mansions, prefectures, logically nothing is respected when everything has failed.

Lordon, of course, would likely be labelled as far-left, if not a populist. In our brave new world, anyone daring to reject TINA ends up being a populist of sorts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I wonder if it was actually predictable that in an increasingly connected world one of the consequences of this would be a resurgence of toxic nationalism and xenophobia. I think it probably was predictable. Just because people can see more of the world from the comfort of their own home, doesn't mean they will look at the world holistically and feel part of something even bigger. Just as likely people will see more of the world and decide that they want to stay in their corner of it, keep it the way it is, and not let what's outside in, thus xenophobic nationalism.

Agreed. I don't have anything to add this.

23 hours ago, Rippounet said:

But it's way to soon to call the election for Le Pen nonetheless.

Who says it has to be Le Pen? Her niece's hypothetical candidacy might make more sense, as would anyone who could be branded as "new" and without any stains on their record. I think there could be a right wing nationalist wave in Europe, who the potential candidates would be doesn't matter at the moment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Who says it has to be Le Pen? Her niece's hypothetical candidacy might make more sense, as would anyone who could be branded as "new" and without any stains on their record. I think there could be a right wing nationalist wave in Europe, who the potential candidates would be doesn't matter at the moment. 

Well, there *is* a right-wing nationalist wave in Europe (and in the Americas as a matter of fact), that much is hardly in debate. But what you're saying here is slightly different: you're saying that you believe that France, specifically, will be one of the next countries to fall prey to it.

It's possible, there's no denying it. Marion Le Pen certainly scares the shit out of me because she will have a lot going for her if she actually runs in 2022. But please allow us (or me) a sliver of hope. These people are no joke. I personally think the French brand of neo-fascism is actually more dangerous than Trumpism (we have far less checks and balances here). If they ever gain power there's simply no telling how far they'll go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Well, there *is* a right-wing nationalist wave in Europe (and in the Americas as a matter of fact), that much is hardly in debate.

For serial.  Really, Ty, where've you been?  Just google scholar "right wing nationalism in europe."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Well, there *is* a right-wing nationalist wave in Europe (and in the Americas as a matter of fact), that much is hardly in debate. But what you're saying here is slightly different: you're saying that you believe that France, specifically, will be one of the next countries to fall prey to it.

It's possible, there's no denying it. Marion Le Pen certainly scares the shit out of me because she will have a lot going for her if she actually runs in 2022. But please allow us (or me) a sliver of hope. These people are no joke. I personally think the French brand of neo-fascism is actually more dangerous than Trumpism (we have far less checks and balances here). If they ever gain power there's simply no telling how far they'll go.

Well perhaps to break illusion that fascism can actually provide people stability, safety and prosperity it needs to happen in a place that is less able to control it. If France is the "weak" spot where the abscess will burst and let the world start to rid itself of the pustular corruption of facism then I'm willing to let France take one for the team. It would suck for France, for a while, but we all might be better in the long run. Festering away at the vitals of society with its true face hidden from view the harm could be so much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Well perhaps to break illusion that fascism can actually provide people stability, safety and prosperity it needs to happen in a place that is less able to control it. If France is the "weak" spot where the abscess will burst and let the world start to rid itself of the pustular corruption of facism then I'm willing to let France take one for the team. It would suck for France, for a while, but we all might be better in the long run. Festering away at the vitals of society with its true face hidden from view the harm could be so much worse.

Isn't it quite dangerous to just assume that such a government would implode and 'voila' Fascism is gone forever. 

It was assumed that China would become more democratic as it became more prosperous, and that authoritarianism would become hugely unpopular. But here we are in 2018 and China is looking to become the world biggest economy, and the government is just as popular as ever, with very little urge to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Controlled market communism is a different beast to rampant Fascism. But you're also dealing with different people. French people seem to fiercely adhere to their pretty long-standing motto of liberte, fraternite, egalite (sorry for shite spelling of French). The yoke of Fascism would strangle all of those ideas, and the people would soon be fighting to break free. The Chinese common people have never (or never in recent history) had any substantial period living in democratic freedom, maybe not any period at all. They are more acclimated to the ruling class telling them what to do. It takes shit load more misery for people used to being ruled over to undertake a long struggle to break free. And now with economic prosperity, and greater freedom (both real and illusory), there is even less incentive to overthrow the current order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was that there was an assumption that democracy would be the automatic outcome of rising living standards and education. In fact it seems that the populace is willing to accept other forms of government if they personally end up doing ok from it. 

If a Fascist government came in and there was a sudden boost to living standards and the economy then I doubt there would be too many riots. Not that such a boost would be likely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@The Anti-Targ

Man, there's no kind way to put it, so I'll just say it: this is seriously stupid.

First you assume that fascism is bad at providing stability, safety, and prosperity. It's not. That's precisely why fascism is so appealing and dangerous. It's really fucking stable, and we know that it's perfectly compatible with capitalism and thus provides prosperity. As for safety, well, it depends who you are in a fascist regime and what kind of resistance said regime is facing, but the other thing fascism is really good at is using scapegoats.
It seems to me you're basing your reasoning on a cartoonish version of fascism that was popular at the last turn of century, but that doesn't square with reality. Stability, safety, and prosperity are pretty much the three things that fascism promises, and all in all it does deliver - but at a high price.

Second, you're assuming the French would resist. What makes you think that? Ideals get corrupted, just think of the "democratic republic" of North Korea. And even if they don't, stability, safety, and prosperity may still be interesting enough to forget about the traditional republican motto. Because you know what other motto is very French? Work, family, country (travail, famille, patrie), the Pétainiste motto under German occupation back in the 1940s. Again, no offense, but it seems you have a slightly cartoonish version of history. When the Germans occupied France back then, the French didn't massively resist them. That's the propaganda that got spread after 1945. In actuality you only had a few percent of the population actively resisting... About as much as the ones collaborating. Bear in mind that fascism was pretty strong in France prior to the war. Though being invaded led to anti-German sentiment, this wasn't exactly anti-fascist or pro-Jew sentiment.
BTW some French went as far as enrolling in the SS in what was known as the "Charlemagne" division. A handful of officers of that division would later play a pivotal role in founding... The National Front, Le Pen's party (which is why she recently changed the name, eh!).

Next you're assuming that the resistance would prevail. That's... unlikely. With a few possible counter-examples, domestic resistance alone very seldom succeeds in overcoming fascist regimes. It certainly wasn't the case in France where all the resistance could do was help the allies liberate the country from the outside.

And finally you seem to think one country can "take one for the team." I wonder what an Austrian or Hungarian leftist would make of that... Anyway that's not how fascism works, that's not how any of this works. You don't give away anything to fascists, ever ; giving away anything only makes them stronger. In this instance, thinking that you can let France go fascist and not face consequences is crazy. Fascism promises stability, safety, and prosperity at home, but it tends to relish in fucking up everyone else. If France goes neo-fascist, either the EU gets corrupted in turn or it gets destroyed. Either way even New Zealand may not be far enough to be immune to repercussions.

Edit for the TL;dr version: if a Le Pen gets 50% of the vote, there's no guarantee that she will leave. At all. If France goes fascist, then France goes fascist, and the only silver lining you get out of it is that France is fucked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Well, there *is* a right-wing nationalist wave in Europe (and in the Americas as a matter of fact), that much is hardly in debate. But what you're saying here is slightly different: you're saying that you believe that France, specifically, will be one of the next countries to fall prey to it.

 

13 hours ago, DMC said:

For serial.  Really, Ty, where've you been?  Just google scholar "right wing nationalism in europe."

I’m well aware that right wing parties are on the rise in Europe, and that they’ve gained control of governments in some of the more minor states. But in my eyes a true wave would mean they’re gaining control of some of the most important countries, and yes, I think France, and to a lesser extent Germany, could be the first major dominos to fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Isn't it quite dangerous to just assume that such a government would implode and 'voila' Fascism is gone forever. 

It was assumed that China would become more democratic as it became more prosperous, and that authoritarianism would become hugely unpopular. But here we are in 2018 and China is looking to become the world biggest economy, and the government is just as popular as ever, with very little urge to change.

China is a bit of strange beast in that the Party there actually seems to be rather afraid over how its population will react when the high rate of economic growth starts to seriously slow down, which we can expect to happen in the next decade or two as China completes its transition to a modern knowledge economy. 

For example, they appear to have believed in something called the "six percent rule", meaning that annual GDP growth always had to be kept above six percent in order avoid the risk of social unrest. Though whether this was correct or just the CCP being paranoid is hard to say. 

In any case, communism as an ideology is not very highly regarded in China any longer for obvious reasons, so the CCP of today instead derives most of its legitimacy from the combination of rapidly improving people's living standards, and nationalism. As the former will become harder and harder to do in the future, one can expect the CCP to increasingly fall back on the latter as its main source of power. 

Fun times. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

I’m well aware that right wing parties are on the rise in Europe, and that they’ve gained control of governments in some of the more minor states. But in my eyes a true wave would mean they’re gaining control of some of the most important countries, and yes, I think France, and to a lesser extent Germany, could be the first major dominos to fall.

Italy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Isn't it quite dangerous to just assume that such a government would implode and 'voila' Fascism is gone forever. 

It was assumed that China would become more democratic as it became more prosperous, and that authoritarianism would become hugely unpopular. But here we are in 2018 and China is looking to become the world biggest economy, and the government is just as popular as ever, with very little urge to change.

China is a civilization state. Everything it does is to protect and expand its civilization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...