Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

Full Version: The French, Coming Apart
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
(04-30-2017, 06:43 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]To the contrary, the socialism came first; the name came later, to differentiate the national socialists from the international socialists.

The "international socialists" were Commies. "National" socialism is practically a negation. It is the use of Big Government to enforce a 'socialism of the rich' -- a new feudalism in which workers are helpless against the willful greed and cruelty of their private employers.

In Nazi Germany, a law existed that forbade workers from seeking new employment without consent of their existing employers. So one can't leave your job without the consent of your employer? That was part of feudalism, and that caused the severe exploitation.

National Socialism is the coordination of all economic activity possible on behalf of what the leadership presents as the Nation -- the Party and its financial backers. It did attract some rogue socialists who either confused the People with the nation or sold out to the fascist brutes because they found that it was easier and more lucrative to deliver a beating to strikers than to take the beating with fellow workers.

Both National Socialism and International (Marxist-Leninist) Socialism achieved serfdom. Even without the racism, National Socialism was a raw deal.

For a valid alternative -- there are more liberal and humanistic variants of socialism than either "national" or "international" socialism.
(05-04-2017, 06:55 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-03-2017, 03:26 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]There was a political theory at one time that the extremes of all philosophies were closer together ideologically than they were with their own less strident compatriots.  I don't see much separating Hitler and Stalin, in practice or otherwise.

AFAIK "Horseshoe Theory" is widely mocked by political scientists, nowadays. Though in my opinion it definitely applies in some narrow cases like in populist movements (where you get right-wing populists aping the rhetoric of the Left) and some conspiracism-prone counterculture types (where you get people often almost sounding like Right-Libertarian nuts).

I agree that any theory taken too literally will have holes.  Still, authoritarian types lean on police and military power in similar ways, regardless of their supposed ideological base.
Well, I got this one right, along with the non-shutdown. I have to tout my successes, seeing as I post among a den of skeptics, and kinda screwed up the big one last November.

France rejects Le Pen and her right-wing populist tide, and turns to Macron

What Emmanuel Macron's victory means for France and the world (Play Video 2:09)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eur...b66a926c5c

Centrist Emmanuel Macron has won the French presidency. He defeated Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s far-right National Front, a strongly anti-immigrant populist party. Macron, 39, will now become France's youngest head of state since Napoleon Bonaparte. (Adam Taylor, Jason Aldag/The Washington Post)
By Griff Witte, James McAuley and Isaac Stanley-Becker May 7 at 6:36 PM

PARIS — France on Sunday shrugged off the siren call of right-wing populism that enchanted voters in the United States and United Kingdom, rejecting anti-E.U. firebrand Marine Le Pen and choosing as its next president Emmanuel Macron, a centrist political neophyte who has pledged to revive both his struggling country and the flailing continent.

The result brought to a close a tumultuous and polarized campaign that defied prediction at nearly every turn, though not at the end. Pre-election polls had forecast a sizable Macron victory, and he delivered — winning some 65 percent of the vote.

The landslide was just the latest blow in 2017 for far-right movements that had seemed to be on the march last year, but have suffered a series of setbacks in recent months across continental Europe.

In a pointed endorsement of European unity, Macron strode to the stage at his raucous victory party in the grand central courtyard of Paris’s Louvre Museum on Sunday night to the strains of Beethoven’s Ode to Joy, the European Union’s anthem.

“The task that awaits us, my fellow citizens, is immense and it starts tomorrow,” Macron said as thousands of supporters cheered and waved French flags.

Marine Le Pen concedes French election to Emmanuel Macron Play Video0:37
The leader of the far-right National Front party thanked her 11 million supporters and said that the country had 'chosen continuity.'

Alluding to the deep divisions laid bare by the campaign, he said Le Pen backers had “expressed an anger, a dismay, and I respect that. I will do everything possible in the five years to come so that they have no reason to vote for the extremes.”

[Macron’s unlikely path to the French presidency]

At her own gathering at a Paris restaurant and events center, a downcast Le Pen conceded defeat, telling her demoralized supporters that the country had “chosen continuity” and that the election had drawn clear lines between “the patriots and the globalists.”

She also vowed to make her National Front the “primary force of opposition” to Macron’s government.

The repudiation of Le Pen by French voters will soothe Europe’s anxious political establishment. Across the continent, mainstream politicians had feared that a victory would throw in reverse decades of efforts to forge continental integration.

But the outcome instantly puts pressure on Macron to deliver on promises made to an unhappy French electorate, including reform of two institutions notoriously resistant to change: the E.U. and the French bureaucracy.

At 39, the trim, blue-eyed and square-jawed Macron will become France’s youngest leader since Napoleon when he is inaugurated on Sunday, and his election caps an astonishing rise.

French citizens across the globe vote in tense election that could decide Europe’s future, choosing pro-business progressive Emmanuel Macron over far-right populist Marine Le Pen.

With a background in investment banking and a turn as economy minister under a historically unpopular president, he may have seemed an ill fit for the anti-establishment anger coursing through Western politics.

But by bucking France’s traditional parties and launching his own movement – En Marche, or Onward -- Macron managed to cast himself as the outsider the country needs. And by unapologetically embracing the European Union, immigration and the multicultural tableau of modern France, he positioned himself as the optimistic and progressive antidote to the dark and reactionary vision of Le Pen’s National Front.

Le Pen, 48, has long sought to become the first far-right leader elected in Western Europe’s post-war history. Sunday’s vote frustrated those ambitions, but is unlikely to end them.

By winning around 35 percent of the vote, she nearly doubled the share claimed by her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, in the 2002 election, the only other time the National Front’s candidate has made it to the second round. The result seemed to cement the party’s long march from the political fringe to the center of the nation’s discontented political discourse, if not the pinnacle of its power.

[Marine Le Pen lost the French election. But her power is growing.]

Struggling with chronically high unemployment and recurrent terrorist attacks, France’s mood on the day of its presidential vote was reflected in the dark clouds and chilly spring rains that blanketed much of the country.

Nonetheless, the public voted at a rate that would be the envy of many Western democracies: From the chic neighborhoods of Paris to the struggling post-industrial towns of the French countryside, turnout nationwide was about 75 percent, down slightly from previous votes.

No matter whom French voters picked, the choice was bound to be historic.

The dominant two parties of France’s Fifth Republic were both eliminated in the first round. The center-left Socialists were decimated, brought low by the failure of incumbent President Francois Hollande to turn around the economy or to prevent a succession of mass-casualty terrorist attacks.

The center-right Republicans, meanwhile, missed what was once seen as a sure-fire bet at returning to power after their candidate, former prime minister Francois Fillon, was hobbled by a series of corruption allegations.

The two candidates who remained, Le Pen and Macron, both traced an outsider’s path as they sought residence at the Élysée Palace.

Of the two, Macron had the more direct route. But his campaign still had to overcome all the usual challenges of a start-up, plus some extraordinary ones — including the publication online Friday night of thousands of hacked campaign documents in a cyber-attack that aroused suspicions of Russian meddling.

The outcome of Sunday’s vote will have profound implications not only for France’s 67 million citizens, but also for the future of Europe and for the political trajectory across the Western world.

After a pair of dramatic triumphs for the populist right in 2016 – with Brexit in the U.K., and Donald Trump in the U.S. – France’s vote was viewed as a test of whether the political mainstream could beat back a rising tide.

Many of Europe’s mainstream leaders -- both center-right and center-left – lined up to cheer Macron on after he punched his ticket to the second round in a vote last month. The endorsements were a break from protocol for presidents and prime ministers who normally stay out of each other’s domestic elections.

But they reflected the gravity of the choice that France faced. A victory by Le Pen was seen as a possible market-rattling death blow to decades of efforts to draw Europe more closely together, with the National Front leader expected to try to take the country out of both the E.U. and the euro.

Former U.S. president Barack Obama had also endorsed Macron, and the young French politician often appeared to be trying to emulate the magic of Obama’s 2008 campaign with speeches that appealed to hope, change and unity -- while eliding many of the details of his policies.

The current White House occupant, Trump, was cagey about his choice, saying before the first round that Le Pen was “the strongest on borders and she's the strongest on what's been going on in France.” He predicted that she would do well, but stopped short of endorsing her.

After Macron’s victory, Trump tweeted congratulations shortly after 3 p.m. Washington time on “his big win today as the next President of France. I look very much forward to working with him!”

On the campaign trail this spring, Le Pen’s rhetoric had often echoed Trump’s, with vows to put “France first” and to defend “the forgotten France.” She also condemned globalist cosmopolitans – Macron chief among them -- who she said did not have the nation’s interests at heart.

But she had distanced herself from Trump since his inauguration, often declining to mention him by name, and analysts said her association with the unpopular American president may have hurt her among French voters.

Macron shares almost nothing with Trump except one key fact: Like the New York real estate tycoon, Macron became president of his country on his first run for elective office.

The son of doctors who was raised in the northern city of Amiens, Macron had to teach himself the basics of campaigning on the fly in the white-hot glare of a presidential race.

Vowing during the campaign to borrow from both left and right, he will now have to learn how to govern a country without the backing of any of its traditional parties.

Instead, he has a movement that he built from scratch, and now faces the immediate challenge of getting En Marche allies elected to the National Assembly.

That vote, due next month, will determine whether Macron has the parliamentary support he needs to enact an agenda of sweeping economic reforms, many of which are likely to unsettle the country’s deeply entrenched labor unions.

Despite his victory, pre-election polls showed that most of Macron’s supporters saw themselves voting against Le Pen rather than for him.

That was reflected on the streets Sunday, with voters even in heavily pro-Macron neighborhoods of Paris saying they felt more resigned than excited.

“On the one hand you have a far-right party that will take us straight to disaster,” said Gilbert Cohen, a retired 82-year-old engineer who cast his ballot amid the vaulted ceilings of Paris’s 17th century Place des Vosges, a former royal residence that was also home to Victor Hugo. “On the other, you have the candidate who’s the only reasonable choice we have.”

Elsewhere in France, the mood was even more markedly downbeat. In Laon, a small and struggling city 90 miles north of Paris, many voters said they were so disillusioned by the choice that they would cast a blank ballot.

Others said their disenchantment had led them to Le Pen – and a hope that, despite the polls, she could still eke out a victory that would bring the radical break for France that they crave.

“We’ve had 50 years of rule from the left and the right,” said Francis Morel, a 54-year-old bread maker who cast his ballot for Le Pen. “Nothing has changed.”

The mood was considerably more cheerful Sunday night at the Louvre, where Macron supporters gathered in what was once the seat of French kings for their candidate’s victory party.

What's most important from where the world meets Washington

Valentin Coutouly, a 23-year-old student who described himself as “European to the core,” said the campaign had been a whirl of emotion, with anxiety setting in near the end. “I think we were all afraid that Le Pen could actually win,” he said.

But as the reality of a Macron presidency washed over the crowd, he could sum up his mood in three words:

“I feel relieved.”

Stanley-Becker reported from Laon and McAuley from Paris. Benjamin Zagzag in Laon and Virgile Demoustier in Paris contributed to this report.

Read more:

Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen, in their own words
(05-04-2017, 01:59 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Both National Socialism and International (Marxist-Leninist) Socialism achieved serfdom. Even without the racism, National Socialism was a raw deal.

Of course.  That's the inevitable result of all forms of socialism.
The Liberal Regeneracy has begun, in Europe at least. The Left and Center needs to all hang together or the Alt-Right will make sure that we all hang separately.
(05-07-2017, 08:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-04-2017, 01:59 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Both National Socialism and International (Marxist-Leninist) Socialism achieved serfdom. Even without the racism, National Socialism was a raw deal.

Of course.  That's the inevitable result of all forms of socialism.

Explain this to the Scandinavians,  They seem to be free and productive ... more so than many so called free-market types.
(05-08-2017, 06:50 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]The Liberal Regeneracy has begun, in Europe at least. The Left and Center needs to all hang together or the Alt-Right will make sure that we all hang separately.

This may not be fully warranted, since Macron has no party behind him and little likelihood of establishing a ruling coalition.  He's like Trump in many ways, having won and now wondering how to govern.  He's unlike Trump in actually understanding what governing means.  Still, he's a one-man army.  Let's see where this goes.   His victory is certainly better than the alternative.*

*I predicted a Le Pen win based on his having no party behind him, yet he won.
(05-08-2017, 10:12 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-07-2017, 08:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-04-2017, 01:59 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Both National Socialism and International (Marxist-Leninist) Socialism achieved serfdom. Even without the racism, National Socialism was a raw deal.

Of course.  That's the inevitable result of all forms of socialism.

Explain this to the Scandinavians,  They seem to be free and productive ... more so than many so called free-market types.
The scandinavian states are not socialists. They are free market societys with high taxes and a well developed wellfare-state.
(05-09-2017, 03:21 AM)freivolk Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-08-2017, 10:12 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-07-2017, 08:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-04-2017, 01:59 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Both National Socialism and International (Marxist-Leninist) Socialism achieved serfdom. Even without the racism, National Socialism was a raw deal.

Of course.  That's the inevitable result of all forms of socialism.

Explain this to the Scandinavians,  They seem to be free and productive ... more so than many so called free-market types.

The scandinavian states are not socialists. They are free market societys with high taxes and a well developed wellfare-state.

Please explain that to Warren Dew.  At the moment, I can't think of any truly socialist economies operating in the world.  Venezuela and Cuba don't really qualify, and North Korea is a lot of things, but socialist it's not.  China is now more capitalist than socialist, but you can argue that they are in the same (similar?) camp with the Scandinavians.
(05-09-2017, 09:50 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-09-2017, 03:21 AM)freivolk Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-08-2017, 10:12 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-07-2017, 08:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-04-2017, 01:59 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Both National Socialism and International (Marxist-Leninist) Socialism achieved serfdom. Even without the racism, National Socialism was a raw deal.

Of course.  That's the inevitable result of all forms of socialism.

Explain this to the Scandinavians,  They seem to be free and productive ... more so than many so called free-market types.

The scandinavian states are not socialists. They are free market societys with high taxes and a well developed wellfare-state.

Please explain that to Warren Dew.  At the moment, I can't think of any truly socialist economies operating in the world.  Venezuela and Cuba don't really qualify, and North Korea is a lot of things, but socialist it's not.  China is now more capitalist than socialist, but you can argue that they are in the same (similar?) camp with the Scandinavians.
I wasn't aware that China had much of a welfare state. I thought that as capitalism took over, it became for of an each man to himself type of society. I could be mistaken, however.
(05-09-2017, 11:33 AM)The Wonkette Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-09-2017, 09:50 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-09-2017, 03:21 AM)freivolk Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-08-2017, 10:12 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-07-2017, 08:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]Of course.  That's the inevitable result of all forms of socialism.

Explain this to the Scandinavians,  They seem to be free and productive ... more so than many so called free-market types.

The scandinavian states are not socialists. They are free market societys with high taxes and a well developed wellfare-state.

Please explain that to Warren Dew.  At the moment, I can't think of any truly socialist economies operating in the world.  Venezuela and Cuba don't really qualify, and North Korea is a lot of things, but socialist it's not.  China is now more capitalist than socialist, but you can argue that they are in the same (similar?) camp with the Scandinavians.

I wasn't aware that China had much of a welfare state.  I thought that as capitalism took over, it became for of an each man to himself type of society.  I could be mistaken, however.

China is still an emerging economy.  Their social welfare program is different than that of a fully developed country.  They need to raise the living standards of average Chinese citizens, and growth is their singular focus.  You can argue that they've gone too far in that regard, building entire cities that stand empty for lack of residents able to live there.  In any case, they are trying something, albeit not what we might try.  Check back in 30 years.
(05-09-2017, 11:33 AM)The Wonkette Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-09-2017, 09:50 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-09-2017, 03:21 AM)freivolk Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-08-2017, 10:12 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-07-2017, 08:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]Of course.  That's the inevitable result of all forms of socialism.

Explain this to the Scandinavians,  They seem to be free and productive ... more so than many so called free-market types.

The scandinavian states are not socialists. They are free market societys with high taxes and a well developed wellfare-state.

Please explain that to Warren Dew.  At the moment, I can't think of any truly socialist economies operating in the world.  Venezuela and Cuba don't really qualify, and North Korea is a lot of things, but socialist it's not.  China is now more capitalist than socialist, but you can argue that they are in the same (similar?) camp with the Scandinavians.
I wasn't aware that China had much of a welfare state.  I thought that as capitalism took over, it became for of an each man to himself type of society.  I could be mistaken, however.


North Korea is fascist. Examine Lawrence Britt's checklist of warning signs of fascism, and North Korea fits most of the criteria very well.

The ethos of every-man-for-himself is valid as a country goes through early-stage industrialism . That's when markets can decide what is necessary and what isn't. So people need basic stuff, and any concern about the environment, health of workers, or social equity matters little. Failure to get through that stage of development results from the capitalists deciding that economic growth matters more than whether workers have a stake in the system. Scarci9ty is the rule in the early-industrial era; plenty is the norm after a certain level of development.

Many of our current problems result from, of all things, plenty. The great wealth that arises from meeting scarcity (and don't fool yourself -- that's how all the Robber Barons from Cornelius Vanderbilt to Sam Walton got rich) isn't so easy to achieve now. People can say no to just about any gouge -- except in real estate. Donald Trump may be the most flagrant of them all, and the farther one is from having to rent from a landlord like him, the less objectionable he can seem... until he rules.

We are in a very new world, and we will need great reforms in existing institutions or new institutions altogether to make life tolerable in that new world. We get to meet the demands of that new world in a Crisis era.
It appears that Macron's new party has won an overwhelming majority in legislative elections, holy shit!
(06-12-2017, 06:45 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]It appears that Macron's new party has won an overwhelming majority in legislative elections, holy shit!

So Europe seems ready to move on, but the Brits and we Americans are still stuck in the partisan mire.  If so, then it seems that they are following a different 4T path than we are, assuming a successful Macron/Merkel alliance is able to advance the EU of course.  If not, then Macron may be the French Obama, and we are, in fact, ahead of them on the 4T curve.  Obama lead to Trump; a failed Macrom may lead to Le Pen. 

It will be interesting to watch.  If Europe begins to strike-out on its own, then he was a game changer, an having a more independent Europe may be a net plus ... or not.  A fractured Europe can't be good for them or us.
Pages: 1 2