Could It?
PARIS–Most Americans don’t care what happens in France. But the oldest country in “Old Europe” remains the Western world’s intellectual capital and one of its primary originators of political trends. (Google “May+1968+Sorbonne.”)
The French are reacting to a situation almost identical to ours–economic collapse, government impotence, corporate corruption–by turning hard left. National strikes and massive demonstrations are occurring every few weeks. How far left? This far: the late president François Mitterand’s Socialist Party, the rough equivalent of America’s Greens, is considered too conservative to solve the economic crisis.
A new poll by the Parisian daily Libération finds 53 percent of French voters (68 percent of 18-to-24-year-olds) favoring “radical social change.” Fifty-seven percent want France to insulate itself from the global economic system. Does this mean revolution? It’s certainly possible. Or maybe counter-revolution: Jean-Marie Le Pen’s nativist (some would say neofascist) National Front is also picking up points.
One thing is certain: French politics are even more volatile than the financial markets these days. In yet another indication of How Far Left?, the Communist-aligned CGT labor union is on the defensive for not being militant enough. “We’re not going to put out the blazing fires [of the economic crisis],” the CGT’s secretary general said, trying to seize the initiative by calling for another strike on February 18th. “We’re going to fan them.”
Two new entities, a Left Party (PG) umbrella organization trying to unify opposition to the conservative government of President Nicolas Sarkozy (who’d be to the left of Obama in the U.S.) and the New Anticapitalist Party (NPA), have seized the popular imagination. The NPA claims to have registered more than 9000 “militants” willing to use violent force to overthrow the government if given the word.
“Only combat pays,” read a banner at the NPA’s first convention.
Communism is dead, most pundits–the mainstream, stupid ones anyway–have been telling us since the USSR shut down in 1991. As it turns out, the libertarians were wrong. Half-right, anyway: Human nature may be inherently individualistic, as free market capitalists claim, but it’s also inherently social. When economies boom, most people are sufficiently satisfied to leave well enough alone. Who cares if my boss gets paid 100 times more than I do? I’m doing OK. As resources become scarce, however, we huddle together for protection. The sight of a small rich elite hoarding all the goodies violates our primal sense of fairness.
“In Soviet times,” a man in present-day Tajikistan told me, “we lived worse than we do today. But we were all the same. Now we live a bit better, but we have to watch rich assholes pass us in their Benzes.” Which would he choose? No hesitation: “Soviet times.”
In America, a French cliché goes, people are afraid of the government. In France, the government is afraid of the people. With good reason, too: the French have overthrown their governments dozens of times since the Revolution of 1789. The French are hard wired with class consciousness. Strikes, demonstrations and general hell-raising are festive occasions. Only when things spin totally out of control–as when Muslim youths rioted in the suburbs of Paris and other cities–are conservatives like Sarkozy able to make headway.
Riots over police brutality by disenfranchised minorities make the French nervous. But contempt for American-style “harsh capitalism,” where citizens pay $800 a month for healthcare and write nary a letter to their local newspaper to complain, is 100 percent mainstream. The French don’t think they should have to suffer just because some greedy bankers went on a looting spree.
Even Sarkozy is getting the message. “We don’t want a European May ’68 in the middle of Christmas,” he warned his ministers in December. He shelved proposals to loosen regulation of business. Arnaud Lagardère, CEO of the Lagardère Group, told the financial daily Les Echos: “We’re seeing, in renewed form, the most debatable aspects of Anglo-Saxon capitalism called into question.”
The French and Americans face similar problems. But their temperamental differences lead them to different conclusions. An average working-class Frenchman possesses a deeper understanding of economics, politics, history and economics than most college professors in the U.S. Go to a bar or café, and sports will be on the television–but not on people’s lips. They’re talking politics and how to force their leaders to protect their quality of life.
Americans, on the other hand, don’t expect direct help from their government. They’re giving Barack Obama time to see whether his economic recovery program will work. It won’t, of course; economists say so. But indolent hopefulness is less work than chucking Molotov cocktails.
Back in France, the NPA sets off rhetorical bombs Americans wouldn’t dream of. “We’re not a boutique party out to get votes, or an institutional mainstream party, but a party of militants,” says the NPA’s leader to the Le Monde newspaper. “We’re real leftists, not official leftists.” The NPA is currently negotiating a temporary alliance of convenience with the Communists.
A communist revolution in western Europe would be greeted by curiosity and derision in the U.S. state-controlled media. But if such a social upheaval were to protect French living standards from a global Depression spinning out of control, it might also prove inspiring to increasingly desperate Americans.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
75 Comments.
Grouchy – You are correct. I reread your comment and saw that I did in fact misread it. In reading it, I simply imbued with a common decency and a desire to correct the economy so that it will be a beneficial economy for everybody – low, middle, and upper class. In doing so, I totally neglected to notice that you're really just an amazingly bitter and selfish individual who just wants the entire nation to burn so that you can get have an artificially higher salary for whatever low-skill job it is that you do. I feel like a fool for not having noticed this. For once, you are truly correct. I apologize.
"This is what I've been for since I saw this trend starting in the 90s."
As far as I'm concerned, the parasite in this ocuntry are the ones collecting free money in the form of socialist welfare.
Angelo -Do you think it's a bit funny that the country with the number one standard of living (Iceland) is now bankrupt? Perhaps forced wealth distribution isn't the silver bullet after all.
Thanks for all the employment advice everyone, but I like my work, and since I live frugally (and don't have any kids), I don't need to make any more money to sustain my modest lifestyle.
But I do want access to higher eduction, health care and a social safety net in case I lose my employment. Enlightened societies consider these human rights to be provided to all. In America, the world's richest country, it's criminal that the working class does without these necessities while the rich write the laws and get tax rates like Warren Buffett…
Incitatus,
1)When did I call any European country socialist?
2)When did Ted say France was better off in the 30s?
3)Do I see a pattern?
owen said:
"As far as I'm concerned, the parasite in this ocuntry are the ones collecting free money in the form of socialist welfare."
Market capitalism failed you, so you ran off to an employer of last resort. How is this a bad thing?
Military Keynsianism is Keynesianism nonetheless, comrade. If the US military cannot be considered socialist, what can be?
Grouchy,
You should be more precise with words. You don't want "access" to this or that. You want stuff that costs money for free. That simple.
Angelo,
1) You (a lot of others) do sound like you think Sweden is closer to Cuba than it is to the US. It isn't.
2) When did I say Ted said that? What I did was make a sardonic remark about what I perceive as Ted's rejoicing over the resurgence of militant hard-core leftism the likes of which France has never seen since the '30s. I quote:
France's resurgent left has been born of a movement borne of a level of mass rage and popular resentment the likes of which no one has seen here since the 1930s. […] The last time France's Left was this unified was 1936, when a similar anti-capitalist coalition formed the Popular Front government.
If we recall that nasty cartoon about Jon Stewart and the writer's strike, it does seem to me that Rall has a longing for the '30s and its crystal clear political lines.
3) If you are not visually impaired, you probably see a lot of patterns. Then again, I'm no eye doctor.
Angelo,
I also see a pattern with Incitatus.
Example: Once, I was arguing with him about the definition of fascism. He was saying that Ted was using the word incorrectly. I was right; he sorta conceded after a trip to the dictionary–but then, out of the blue, he accused me of desiring censorship. A complete non sequitur.
When he's at a loss, he'll put something in your mouth or post a snide taunt devoid of substance. (Like the time he made fun of me for using the words "externalization of cost" and then refused to discuss the problem he had with the concept or term.)
He loves to shift the ground, drop an insult, and argue against unrelated topics that he introduced himself (like smoking bans).
Incitatus is sometimes fun to joust with, but he doesn't have a lot of staying power. If you call him on his bullshit, he'll just go away…
You should be more precise with words. You don't want "access" to this or that. You want stuff that costs money for free. That simple.
That simple?
In this simple little construct of the world (which I assume you want to live in), nothing happens unless money is traded. Nothing is that simple. All societies have different relationships between what they value–and how value is measured.
I don't want government services for "free." I contribute to society both through the work I do and and taxes I pay.
For those who are only chasing money it might be difficult to understand, but it is not possible to put a dollar amount on the "value" of each human being and their work.
Everybody deserves a level playing field if the social contract is to have any legitimacy.
That simple!
Grouchy,
These comment boards are not message boards playing to the infinite. There's time to move on. I take issue with you saying I occasionally "drop an insult", because long years of Usenet posting taught me to try to be civil even to people I'll never meet face to face.
You're mixing me up with someone else in this bout about the meaning of "fascism", which does have a precise meaning in political science, other than stuff/people you don't like.
We can have this profound discussion on "externalization of cost" any time you ant it, in another thread. It's obvious that business (and not only corporations, as you would have it) pass on cost to their customers: they're not charities. It's also obvious that negative externalities, by their very flimsy definition, are hard to measure and to account for, especially dealing with so-called common goods.
I absolutely agree that some things in life have no price tag. That is not the case with the time, knowledge and skill of a doctor or a university professor (the stuff you were referring too), unless they're working pro bono, so to speak.
But I do want access to higher eduction, health care and a social safety net in case I lose my employment. Enlightened societies consider these human rights to be provided to all.
These are not rights because to have them free you need to take money or labor from someone else by force.
If you want them go earn them.
"debating whether or not to
re-distribute wealth is dishonest.
not every subject warrants debate"
Anyone who tries to take anymore of my hard earned money by force (redistribute) will learn first hand just what the 2nd Amendment really means.
"Funny how when you get to know them, rich or poor, noone is that one-dimensional."
Incitatus, I have wealthy friends. Of course I like them as people, but that does not change the fact that they continue to bring down my quality of life by voting for policymakers who fuck up the tax code.
"Anyone who tries to take anymore of my hard earned money by force (redistribute) will learn first hand just what the 2nd Amendment really means."
LMAO!
awwww, poor Owen has to pay his own wage because he supports politicians who refuse to tax the wealthy. Sorry comrade, someone has to support your little socialist society.
(the richest one percent used to be taxed 91%. Kennedy changed it to 75%. Reagan took it down to 28%. Guess who pays the difference.)
Angelo,
The top 25% of all income earners pay 86% of all federal income taxes. The top 1% pay 39%. The bottom 50% pay 3%.
Angelo,
Here's who pays the taxes (PS it's not the poor like Grouchy):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html
"When Force is gone, there's always Mom."
– Laurie Anderson
Here's who pays the taxes (PS it's not the poor like Grouchy):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html
Thanks for posting these stats. You'll see that the top 1% only have a 21% tax rate. That's a much smaller percentage than I pay. The richest 5% pay a 36% rate. That's about the same as I have.
I'm glad you linked to this article so I can point out how un-progressive the U.S. tax system is. And these stats are figured after the rich have used loopholes to hide a lion's share of their income! Can you imagine how sickening it would look if the I.R.S. was factoring in their real income?
(Not that I think the total amount of taxes should be raised. Enough taxes are already collected. But to get the same amount, we should shift taxes away from the incomes lower than 100k and tax capitol gains to make up the difference (The rich only pay 5% on capital gains!). Then, if we cut 2/3 of military spending, we'll have plenty to balance the budget and have universal health care.)
Grouchy,
Where do you see that the richest only pay a 21% income tax rate? If you are referring to the chart titled "The Rich Pay More" the 21% is a share of total income not a tax rate? And who told you capital gains is 5%?
Grouchy,
The top rate is 35% and capital gains is 20%. Someone like you earning $30,000 does not pay 36% in federal income tax. You are in the 15% tax bracket.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
edward, the wealthiest 25% own 86% of the wealth.
jason said:
"Angelo -Do you think it's a bit funny that the country with the number one standard of living (Iceland) is now bankrupt? Perhaps forced wealth distribution isn't the silver bullet after all."
Wealth redistribution does not lead to bankruptcy. Where is all of this dishonesty coming from?
Look at US wealth redistribution history. It was never a bad thing to have better wealth redistribution.
Oddly enough Grouchy is silent.
Hey, now, who said that "wealth redistribution" led to the Icelandic bankruptcy? I just think it's interesting that even nations that steal money from the earners and dole it out to everybody else are capable of collapsing just like all the evil money-grubbing countries.
And you are right that redistribution has never wrecked America. Whether it was bad, of course, i highly arguable. But your statement that it "does not lead to bankruptcy" is just silly. China's Great Leap Forward did just that – starving millions of people in the process. Pol Pot's redistribution plan did the same. And while redistribution can't be said to be the only thing that brought the USSR to ruins, it certainly had a hand.
So, when weighing the advantages against the disadvantages, one has to ask which has really brought about more suffering? Radical income redistribution or unchecked capitalism?
quoth jason:
"even nations that steal money from the earners and dole it out to everybody else are capable of collapsing just like all the evil money-grubbing countries.
"
When "earning" means "is" extracting surplus labor from lots of people, earning=stealing. The consequences for our discussion should be obvious.
It only matters that an economy tanks to the extent that it affects the life of the people.