The French, Coming Apart

[Dan '82]

https://www.city-journal.org/html/french...15125.html

Quote:The real-estate market in any sophisticated city reflects deep aspirations and fears. If you had a feel for its ups and downs—if you understood, say, why young parents were picking this neighborhood and drunks wound up relegated to that one—you could make a killing in property, but you also might be able to pronounce on how society was evolving more generally. In 2016, a real-estate developer even sought—and won—the presidency of the United States.

In France, a real-estate expert has done something almost as improbable. Christophe Guilluy calls himself a geographer. But he has spent decades as a housing consultant in various rapidly changing neighborhoods north of Paris, studying gentrification, among other things. And he has crafted a convincing narrative tying together France’s various social problems—immigration tensions, inequality, deindustrialization, economic decline, ethnic conflict, and the rise of populist parties. Such an analysis had previously eluded the Parisian caste of philosophers, political scientists, literary journalists, government-funded researchers, and party ideologues...

https://www.city-journal.org/html/french...15125.html

[beechnut79]

(04-23-2017, 07:45 AM)Dan Wrote: https://www.city-journal.org/html/french...15125.html

Quote:The real-estate market in any sophisticated city reflects deep aspirations and fears. If you had a feel for its ups and downs—if you understood, say, why young parents were picking this neighborhood and drunks wound up relegated to that one—you could make a killing in property, but you also might be able to pronounce on how society was evolving more generally. In 2016, a real-estate developer even sought—and won—the presidency of the United States.

In France, a real-estate expert has done something almost as improbable. Christophe Guilluy calls himself a geographer. But he has spent decades as a housing consultant in various rapidly changing neighborhoods north of Paris, studying gentrification, among other things. And he has crafted a convincing narrative tying together France’s various social problems—immigration tensions, inequality, deindustrialization, economic decline, ethnic conflict, and the rise of populist parties. Such an analysis had previously eluded the Parisian caste of philosophers, political scientists, literary journalists, government-funded researchers, and party ideologues...

https://www.city-journal.org/html/french...15125.html

Sounds exactly like what has been happening here in the US; the one difference may be that France may not have two dominant political parties with no room for minority (party) entrance, hence the large number of available candidates. Shades of 1789, perhaps?

[Eric the Green]

Macron 23.9 centrist (probably center-left by our standards)
LePen 21.4 right-wing nationalist
Fillon 19.9 center-right
Melanchon 19.6 left wing
Hamon 6.3 socialist
Dupont-Aignan, 4.7 gaullist/sovereignist

Macron has been described by some observers as a social liberal[22][23][24][25][26] and by others as a social democrat.[27][28][29] During his time in the French Socialist Party, he supported the party's right wing,[30] whose political stance has been associated with "third way" policies advanced by Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Gerhard Schröder, and whose leading spokesman has been former prime minister Manuel Valls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Macron


We're now heading up to the second round. Most of the polls I've seen suggest Macron has a comfortable lead. Is there any reason to doubt the second-round polls?

No. I've seen how they do it, it's almost mathematical. They ask people how they voted in the first round. They adjust for that and only for that and then they run their estimation process. This usually gives an exact — absolutely exact! — estimate. They've never missed the second-round vote, despite what Nate Silver may say. In fact, they usually have it perfectly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worl...73f48514f8

So, coming apart? In this respect, at least, maybe not so much.

[Warren Dew]

Both Macron and Le Pen are socialist, so there's not much to choose there.  The globalist candidates won a substantial majority of the votes in the first round, so that would say Macron wins.

I think the EU wins this round.

[David Horn]

(04-24-2017, 04:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Both Macron and Le Pen are socialist, so there's not much to choose there.  The globalist candidates won a substantial majority of the votes in the first round, so that would say Macron wins.

I think the EU wins this round.

I'm going to be a contrarian here and predict a Le Pen victory.  I doubt this will be a socialist victory, unless you only wish to include French citizens without a complicating duel citizenship ... preferably ones with no ties to elsewhere.  She is a purification candidate, and socialism is the least aspect of what she wants to accomplish.

Watch the EU dissolve, and see the result in real time.  I doubt the NATO alliance will stand either.  Putin will be happy.

[Warren Dew]

(04-25-2017, 10:29 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-24-2017, 04:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Both Macron and Le Pen are socialist, so there's not much to choose there.  The globalist candidates won a substantial majority of the votes in the first round, so that would say Macron wins.

I think the EU wins this round.

I'm going to be a contrarian here and predict a Le Pen victory.  I doubt this will be a socialist victory, unless you only wish to include French citizens without a complicating duel citizenship ... preferably ones with no ties to elsewhere.  She is a purification candidate, and socialism is the least aspect of what she wants to accomplish.

That's what national socialism is all about:  socialism, but only for nationals.  That's what differentiated it from communist internationalism, which wanted to take over the world.

[beechnut79]

(04-25-2017, 02:10 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(04-25-2017, 10:29 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-24-2017, 04:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Both Macron and Le Pen are socialist, so there's not much to choose there.  The globalist candidates won a substantial majority of the votes in the first round, so that would say Macron wins.

I think the EU wins this round.

I'm going to be a contrarian here and predict a Le Pen victory.  I doubt this will be a socialist victory, unless you only wish to include French citizens without a complicating duel citizenship ... preferably ones with no ties to elsewhere.  She is a purification candidate, and socialism is the least aspect of what she wants to accomplish.

That's what national socialism is all about:  socialism, but only for nationals.  That's what differentiated it from communist internationalism, which wanted to take over the world.

Recall that the very word Nazi was shorthand for National Socialist.

[Odin]

(04-24-2017, 04:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Both Macron and Le Pen are socialist, so there's not much to choose there.  The globalist candidates won a substantial majority of the votes in the first round, so that would say Macron wins.

I think the EU wins this round.

You calling either candidate a socialist shows that you do not understand what the word means.

[Odin]

(04-25-2017, 02:10 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(04-25-2017, 10:29 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-24-2017, 04:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Both Macron and Le Pen are socialist, so there's not much to choose there.  The globalist candidates won a substantial majority of the votes in the first round, so that would say Macron wins.

I think the EU wins this round.

I'm going to be a contrarian here and predict a Le Pen victory.  I doubt this will be a socialist victory, unless you only wish to include French citizens without a complicating duel citizenship ... preferably ones with no ties to elsewhere.  She is a purification candidate, and socialism is the least aspect of what she wants to accomplish.

That's what national socialism is all about:  socialism, but only for nationals.  That's what differentiated it from communist internationalism, which wanted to take over the world.

I bet you think North Korea is democratic, too?

[Warren Dew]

(04-29-2017, 11:26 AM)Odin Wrote:

(04-25-2017, 02:10 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(04-25-2017, 10:29 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-24-2017, 04:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Both Macron and Le Pen are socialist, so there's not much to choose there.  The globalist candidates won a substantial majority of the votes in the first round, so that would say Macron wins.

I think the EU wins this round.

I'm going to be a contrarian here and predict a Le Pen victory.  I doubt this will be a socialist victory, unless you only wish to include French citizens without a complicating duel citizenship ... preferably ones with no ties to elsewhere.  She is a purification candidate, and socialism is the least aspect of what she wants to accomplish.

That's what national socialism is all about:  socialism, but only for nationals.  That's what differentiated it from communist internationalism, which wanted to take over the world.

I bet you think North Korea is democratic, too?

Where do you get the idea that Juche is a democratic philosophy?

[Odin]

(04-30-2017, 12:37 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(04-29-2017, 11:26 AM)Odin Wrote:

(04-25-2017, 02:10 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(04-25-2017, 10:29 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-24-2017, 04:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Both Macron and Le Pen are socialist, so there's not much to choose there.  The globalist candidates won a substantial majority of the votes in the first round, so that would say Macron wins.

I think the EU wins this round.

I'm going to be a contrarian here and predict a Le Pen victory.  I doubt this will be a socialist victory, unless you only wish to include French citizens without a complicating duel citizenship ... preferably ones with no ties to elsewhere.  She is a purification candidate, and socialism is the least aspect of what she wants to accomplish.

That's what national socialism is all about:  socialism, but only for nationals.  That's what differentiated it from communist internationalism, which wanted to take over the world.

I bet you think North Korea is democratic, too?

Where do you get the idea that Juche is a democratic philosophy?

You seem to think "National Socialism" is actually socialism because names, so you must also think the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is democratic.

[Warren Dew]

To the contrary, the socialism came first; the name came later, to differentiate the national socialists from the international socialists.

[Eric the Green]

(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.

National socialists base their tyranny on the idea that a "nation" is a race, engaged in a struggle for the survival of the fittest race. Socialism is based on the idea of ownership in common. Modern "scientific" socialism is based on peoples' collective ownership of the economic means of production, in a class struggle that transcends national boundaries. Socialism can be democratic, or tyrannical, which is also true of capitalism (based on private ownership).

Quote:That's what national socialism is all about: socialism, but only for nationals. That's what differentiated it from communist internationalism, which wanted to take over the world.

As it turned out, Stalin was interested in "socialism in one country," whereas the Nazis actually started a war to take over the world. Hitler and Mussolini had goals of world conquest from the start, and as their primary purpose and agenda. Communism and socialism seek to "take over the world," but through revolutions and an international movement by the people rather than by international armed conquest. They spread propaganda, and sometimes pursue infiltration and espionage (although less than supposed by reactionaries like McCarthy), rather than sending armies. The conquest of Eastern Europe by Stalin's Soviet Union/Russia was to create a buffer zone against another periodic German invasion.

[Eric the Green]

(04-25-2017, 10:29 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-24-2017, 04:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Both Macron and Le Pen are socialist, so there's not much to choose there.  The globalist candidates won a substantial majority of the votes in the first round, so that would say Macron wins.

I think the EU wins this round.

I'm going to be a contrarian here and predict a Le Pen victory.  I doubt this will be a socialist victory, unless you only wish to include French citizens without a complicating duel citizenship ... preferably ones with no ties to elsewhere.  She is a purification candidate, and socialism is the least aspect of what she wants to accomplish.

Watch the EU dissolve, and see the result in real time.  I doubt the NATO alliance will stand either.  Putin will be happy.

I have little to contribute astrologically to a prediction in this, except that Trump has inspired a worldwide Awakening of progressive activism. This is indicated by the current opposition of Jupiter and Uranus. That would favor Macron. Also, the election results in the first round show more votes for the center-left and left than for the center-right and right. Polls predict a Macron victory, and French polls are good.

[David Horn]

(04-25-2017, 02:10 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(04-25-2017, 10:29 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-24-2017, 04:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Both Macron and Le Pen are socialist, so there's not much to choose there.  The globalist candidates won a substantial majority of the votes in the first round, so that would say Macron wins.

I think the EU wins this round.

I'm going to be a contrarian here and predict a Le Pen victory.  I doubt this will be a socialist victory, unless you only wish to include French citizens without a complicating duel citizenship ... preferably ones with no ties to elsewhere.  She is a purification candidate, and socialism is the least aspect of what she wants to accomplish.

That's what national socialism is all about:  socialism, but only for nationals.  That's what differentiated it from communist internationalism, which wanted to take over the world.

Sorry, but self assigned labels mean little.  After all, the DPRK claims to be democratic in much the same way the Nazis coopted socialism, as noted by Odin above.  In any case, neither of these two seems bent on establishing anything similar to a socialist system, though the French already enjoy a mixed economy that may seem like socialism to you.

[Warren Dew]

(05-01-2017, 03:04 PM)David Horn Wrote: After all, the DPRK claims to be democratic in much the same way the Nazis coopted socialism, as noted by Odin above.

To the contrary, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea claims to be democratic in much the same way the National Socialists claimed to be nationalist, which as Eric points out, was a questionable claim in practice.  There is, however, no doubt that the National Socialists were socialist, any more than there is doubt about the Democratic People's Republic of Korea being Korean.

[Odin]

(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.

You're spouting alternative facts. The Nazis are FASCISTS, they are FAR-RIGHT. Claiming otherwise makes you either a propagandist or a brainwashed idiot.

[Odin]

(05-02-2017, 06:12 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(05-02-2017, 04:03 PM)Odin Wrote:

(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.

You're spouting alternative facts. The Nazis are FASCISTS, they are FAR-RIGHT. Claiming otherwise makes you either a propagandist or a brainwashed idiot.

We're splitting hairs. Ultimately, Stalin, Hitler and those like them were and are Totalitarians. Hannah Arendt was very keen about this point.

Oh, of course, I was just calling out his pushing the common right-wing propaganda trope of conflating authoritarianism with the left.

[David Horn]

(05-02-2017, 06:12 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(05-02-2017, 04:03 PM)Odin Wrote:

(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.

You're spouting alternative facts. The Nazis are FASCISTS, they are FAR-RIGHT. Claiming otherwise makes you either a propagandist or a brainwashed idiot.

We're splitting hairs. Ultimately, Stalin, Hitler and those like them were and are Totalitarians. Hannah Arendt was very keen about this point.

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.

[Odin]

(05-03-2017, 03:26 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-02-2017, 06:12 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(05-02-2017, 04:03 PM)Odin Wrote:

(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.

You're spouting alternative facts. The Nazis are FASCISTS, they are FAR-RIGHT. Claiming otherwise makes you either a propagandist or a brainwashed idiot.

We're splitting hairs. Ultimately, Stalin, Hitler and those like them were and are Totalitarians. Hannah Arendt was very keen about this point.

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).