Question about Paris...

bonkey

Sand wrote:

Yep pretty much - the fallout from Katrina was due to indifferent uncaring capitalism and the fabled "american dream" (complete with " ") abandoning the weakest and non-white. Thats roughly what I recall the constant dirge being.

Way to ignore what I said, Sand. I asked if the criticism was that the French would never have let this happen. It wasn't. It was that the American's did a p1ss poor job of managing it and that there was no excuse.

As I said - the bit you didn't bother quoting:

When you read "they screwed it up" as "obviously, we Europeans are better and wouldn't make such a mistake" I would humbly suggest it is your interpretation which is at fault.

This is the way of life thats constantly held as some shining beacon for us to all achieve. The way of life that doesnt abandon the weakest unlike les cruel ango-saxons.

The people I mostly see holding this way of life up as a shining beacon are the French themseleves. Strangely enough, I see the same pattern with the American way of life.

I'm as skeptical of the claims of one as of the other.

Anyway, why so concerned?

Why hide your dislike of them behing a false facade of having a respectable or credible argument?

As for your American comment...I've made it clear on multiple occasions on this forum that I do not support the American Administration, and I have disagreements with aspects of American culture. Unlike you, though, I don't go bashing a nation and all of its people just because the opportunity arises to get a few digs in while they're in the middle of a crisis.

When I criticised the handling of Katrina, its because I felt no-one deserves to be neglected or let down so badly by their government in time of crisis. You, on the other hand, seem almost gleeful that Les Francais are being taken down a peg or two.

Show me where I jumped for joy that Americans were getting killed because their government couldn't respond to a crisis adequately, and I'll accept that your question about my concern is genuine.

Otherwise, it just seems to be a rephrased "can't I engage in nation bashing too" question. Of course you can. Just don't expect me to agree with you.

The police need to retake these areas and remain there. Unfortunately that wont happen, the political will isnt there to do anything but try and put the lid back on the pot and leave the problem for the next generation of politicians to solve.

Perhaps the French government realise that a permanent police presence, enforcing the peace through superior firepower isn't a long-term solution either.

So you'll criticise them for implementing whatever stop-gap solution they go for instead of for implementing a stop-gap solution with guns.

See above. I sympathise with them,

Gee. IN the first post, it was only those who had to live with the French you sympathised with. Now its the French people too? How kind of you.

For as long as you dont have integration, and a shared culture, you will have social division and rioting.

/me looks out the window at the riots on the streets of Bern, and listens to how Geneva, Zurich, Basel and the rest are in flames.

You are so right.

Thats the problem with socialism. Those people have been made utterly dependant on the state,

Yeah. capitalism would have just left them penniless when the jobs ran out. Then when they couldn't pay rent, they'd be homeless.

Then clearly they wouldn't have rioted or anything. They'd have been happy as they starved to death from lack of food.

Or are you suggesting that socialism is the reason they lost their jobs in the first place?

jc

lili

Sand wrote:

Thats the problem with socialism. Those people have been made utterly dependant on the state, a state that basically pays them to stay away and not to cause trouble. The protectionist social model keeps them unemployed, and they live where theyre told to live basically because they are a number on a long list in a bureacrats office and they dont get an awful lot of choice. You can see how such a system builds up self respect, cant you?

would you prefer the state let them die in the streets like it's the case in another country i will not name?
france with scandinave countries do have certainly the best social covering. it will nomore work because the globalisation but IMO, the quality of life in france has been better than elsewhere.
i must say that the quality of my life has always been better under socialist government. right party just destroy what the lefties built. de villepin is planing now to give back what the right party cut 2 years ago concerning the associations which worked so hard for improve social stuff in the banlieues.

Karl Hungus

Sand wrote:

If you make compromises on your basic values and cultural standards, your sending a clear signal that those values and standards arent worth defending.

I think you hit on something that could be quite true there Sand.

It seem the greatest folly here is to assume that the immigrant population actually want to integrate in the first place, and as we all know, assumption is the mother of all ****-ups.

A question.
Why do you think that immigrants would want, or even can be integrated?

I'd honestly like to hear an answer from the people who are saying that France's problem is not integrating them into their society.

Now, we've got a Muslim population here in Ireland, but how often do we see any of them enjoying a night out at a pub for example. Yes, I know alcohol is forbidden, but many Irish non-drinkers can still go out and have a laugh, so why not the Muslims? Or how often do we see any of them coming out for a concert, or sporting event, or a show at the theater, or well, anything else we'd consider normal passtimes? I don't think there's anything in the Muslim faith that prohibits enjoying a concert, so what gives? Could it be that Muslims don't want any part of Irish society?

Sand

Way to ignore what I said, Sand. I asked if the criticism was that the French would never have let this happen. It wasn't. It was that the American's did a p1ss poor job of managing it and that there was no excuse.

*sighs*

I can see this getting into hairsplitting tbh. The coverage of Katrina and its aftermath dwelt at lenth on the plight of the "underclass" and laid the blame at the capitalist system in the US which didnt provide a safety net, arguing for big government to solve the poverty revealed, I.E the European approach.

By default, if this is not raising the European model above the US, it is pushing the US below the European which is the same thing. And if the US did a piss poor job of managing a massive natural disaster when a lot of the local law enforcement and infrastructure simply vanished how would you describe the French handling of a much less difficult situation? My interpretation of the moralising from the pulpit on "the dark side of the American dream" ad nauseum is fairly spot on Id have thought.

The people I mostly see holding this way of life up as a shining beacon are the French themseleves. Strangely enough, I see the same pattern with the American way of life.

Oh Bonkey, the word francophile isnt in common usage for no reason.

Why hide your dislike of them behing a false facade of having a respectable or credible argument?

Cant I have a dislike of them *and* a respectable or credible argument?

When I criticised the handling of Katrina, its because I felt no-one deserves to be neglected or let down so badly by their government in time of crisis. You, on the other hand, seem almost gleeful that Les Francais are being taken down a peg or two.

Im sure you did, you know your own mind best. But when you consider the free advice the US was receiving on managing its poorest and most marginalised, arent you at least somewhat reminded of the words "stones", "glasshouses" "throwing"? Not even slightly?

These cites didnt spring up yesterday, the benevolent neglect didnt break out last tuesday. It was there long, long before Katrina ever arrived. And lets be clear here, the gangs that are rioting have been punishing their communities the exact same way for decades. The *only* difference is that theyre now punishing white French middle class communities who were previously more concerned about "les anglo-saxon" model threatening their idyllic utopia.

Perhaps the French government realise that a permanent police presence, enforcing the peace through superior firepower isn't a long-term solution either.

Law and order is non-negotiable. Law enforcement is a basic requirement of freedom and good society, it is not the enemy. The French withdrew policing from these areas based on the supposedly "liberal" idea that policing was a bad idea, thus these became no go areas where the police could only make raids and incursions but couldnt remain. That has to stop. If they were to go back in and re-establish policing theyd be starting from a lousy postion given the prior policy, but people deserve a police force.

Gee. IN the first post, it was only those who had to live with the French you sympathised with. Now its the French people too? How kind of you.

My use of "them" was with regard to the inhabitants of these ghettos, I thought that was clear from the context of refferring to their behaviour (the rioting) as self destructive? Though I do sympathise with the victims of the rioting as well. I dont sympathise with the French ruling elite getting a wakeup call though.

/me looks out the window at the riots on the streets of Bern, and listens to how Geneva, Zurich, Basel and the rest are in flames.

You are so right.

Oh wow.

So 3 western european, christian, renaissance, enlightment cultures all managed to get along after centuries of religious strife and civil war. A success story that sets a clear example for plonking north african/arab, muslims, often from tribal or feudal societies, with their only experience of the *radical* ideas from the enlightment as being the victims of colonialism right down in the middle of one of those western european societies and just expecting everyone to get along. I mean, the Swiss managed it after a few hundred years. Why cant it work in a few decades? I mean were making the extra effort of telling people that they dont have to integrate if they dont want to, that actually they probably shouldnt.

No really, Yugoslavia, flash in the pan. The by this stage annual riots in northern Britain, just a coincidence. The pandemic of tribal warfare in the third world (Rwanda and Darfur is only what we hear about - briefly) is merely odd. The sectarian massacre of Indian muslims by their fellow citizens a few years back is hardly worth mentioning. Lets not even dwell on our more infamous example of multi-culturalism in Northern Ireland, where they cant even agree what country they live in.

No, thats all trumped by 3 very similar cultures developing a shared swiss culture after centuries of trying.

Yeah. capitalism would have just left them penniless when the jobs ran out. Then when they couldn't pay rent, they'd be homeless.

Then clearly they wouldn't have rioted or anything. They'd have been happy as they starved to death from lack of food.

Or are you suggesting that socialism is the reason they lost their jobs in the first place?

would you prefer the state let them die in the streets like it's the case in another country i will not name?
france with scandinave countries do have certainly the best social covering. it will nomore work because the globalisation but IMO, the quality of life in france has been better than elsewhere.
i must say that the quality of my life has always been better under socialist government. right party just destroy what the lefties built. de villepin is planing now to give back what the right party cut 2 years ago concerning the associations which worked so hard for improve social stuff in the banlieues.

Same point basically so Ill answer them together. Youre both assuming that the people in these ghettos are not employable and cannot be expected to hold down jobs or learn useful, marketable skills. That they require government handouts and if they did not get them theyd die on the streets.

Thats the attitude that underlies a lot of the anger and frustration these people are feeling. Theyre *kept*. Dont underestimate the self respect that comes from learning a skill, getting a job and putting food on the table without being condemned as a hopeless charity case who couldnt make it in "the real world".

And Bonkey, "when the jobs ran out"? WTF? Is there like a finite amount of them or something? How does population growth figure into that theory? Demand creates supply which creates demand. A more bussiness friendly model encourages employment, which creates new worker/consumers, which creates more employment to satisfy their demands and so on. There is not some zero sum choice between capitalism and forgotten ghettos on the one hand socialism and kittens and sunshine...if nothing else the French riots should have blown away that myth.

Sand

Why do you think that immigrants would want, or even can be integrated?

It depends on what integration means I think. The problem in Europe is that theyre all basically nation-states born in the 19th century or so, often built on the premise of France for the French, Italy for the Italians and so on and so forth. Alot of the shared national myths were just that, myths, but they worked. Its probably harder for nation states to suddenly abandon the nationalistic elements of their nature, and suddenly stress shared values and so on. So if integration means signing up for nationalism of the host country, it probably wont work ( I cant see immigrants being overly concerned with the Irish language, or the need to expel the British army of occupation from NI tbh). There is a large body of thought though that a condition of being "really" Irish is having the correct opinion on both of the above, so in that case integration will never work.

The U.S. has had the advanatage that it is not a nation state, and probably never will be given the American love of styling themselves as Irish American, Italian American, African American, and so on and so forth. Instead they stress flag waving, the sacredness of the constitution/state institutions like the army and the Supreme Court. Integration there means only signing up to that. It comes across as crass to us, who dont need to be reminded by hordes of flags that were Irish given that the whole reason for our state existing is that were Irish, but it works when you consider the level of diversity and integration in the U.S.

Now, we've got a Muslim population here in Ireland, but how often do we see any of them enjoying a night out at a pub for example. Yes, I know alcohol is forbidden, but many Irish non-drinkers can still go out and have a laugh, so why not the Muslims? Or how often do we see any of them coming out for a concert, or sporting event, or a show at the theater, or well, anything else we'd consider normal passtimes? I don't think there's anything in the Muslim faith that prohibits enjoying a concert, so what gives? Could it be that Muslims don't want any part of Irish society?

Well it might be a good sign of integration if you dont notice them That said, were still in the 1st generation stage of large scale immigration, where real integration has rarely happened - immigrants are often just glad to get in and keep their heads down, and its often very hard to get into what can be a vastly different society (I read an article in the paper today about a hotel in Kabul, a tailor visited to see the "moving stairs" for himself and was amazed by them, one can only imagine the culture shock of immigrants to a society that takes escalators for granted) .

If there are going to be real problems with integration itll come with the 2nd and 3rd generation who may have a mixture of alienation (depending on how things turn out) along with entitlement (as native born citizens they wont be satisfied with keeping their heads down - and shouldnt be either).

bonkey

Sand wrote:

Cant I have a dislike of them *and* a respectable or credible argument?

When you seperate the two, sure. When you present an argument and can't resist teh urge to throw in a few digs at teh same time....well....I guess I'd have to say no in that situation.

Youre both assuming that the people in these ghettos are not employable and cannot be expected to hold down jobs or learn useful, marketable skills.

You're so right. Thats why they had jobs under full employment, and why I was talking about what should have happened to them when these jobs were lost. Its because I believed they were unemployable.

In less than full employment, by definition, there will be unemployed people. The "socialism" that you are deriding is the system that keeps these unemployed people out of the gutter.

That they require government handouts and if they did not get them theyd die on the streets.

Can you explain to me either how a nation with less than full employment will not have unemployed, or how these unemployed will not require government handouts?

Thats the attitude that underlies a lot of the anger and frustration these people are feeling.

Sand...you're the one blaming the socialist system for putting them where they are. Not me.

And Bonkey, "when the jobs ran out"? WTF? Is there like a finite amount of them or something?

I see. You're labouring under the mistaken belief that employment levels are a fixed constant, or are only capable of increasing. This is clearly where your problem lies.

There is not some zero sum choice between capitalism and forgotten ghettos on the one hand socialism and kittens and sunshine...if nothing else the French riots should have blown away that myth.

Clearly not.

You seem to be suggesting that its capitalism, the assumption of full employment, jobs for all because thats how it works, sunshine and kittens versus socialism which puts people in ghettos and encourages them not to work and ultimately brings the system to a grinding halt - as you seem to be presenting it.

All I initially did was question your initial sweepnig statement that this is the problem with socialism - that these people have been made utterly dependant on the state. Socialism didn't make them utterly dependant Sand. Losing their jobs did. And it wasn't socialism that lost them their jobs. It was a downturn in the capitalist-centric economy. Sure, the social policies of teh French might have accelerated that, but they didn't cause it.

Then you went on to suggest that

The protectionist social model keeps them unemployed,

I take it back. You're right. None of them want jobs. they want to live in this squallor that they're rioting against. They want to be paid just enough to live in the very conditions that I think everyone here will agree are unacceptable and unsustainable. Its all socialism's fault. Socialism for engendering laziness, and that laziness which engenders violence.

Why not go the whole hog and suggest that the only reason immigrants came to France when the French were begging out for workers was so that they could lose their jobs and work the system.

jc

gaf1983

I found the City Journal article to be a very concise summary of why the cités have gone to hell in a handbasket.

One very interesting point that emerged from it was the one regarding law-enforcement in France is this: "The local police chiefs were paid by results—by the crime rates in their areas of jurisdiction." This proved to be a deterrent to police making arrests - rather than have the crime statistics go up by doing their job properly, it was more beneficial to let the perpetrator of the crime off with a warning so the figures wouldn't look bad and their renumeration package wouldn't be harmed.

Does anyone know if police are paid in the same way in other countries? I can see the benefits of it - in an ideal world it would be an incentive for police to reduce crime in their neighbourhoods, but it according to Dalrymple it causes the police to not seek prosecutions against criminals.

If it is the case that this method of performance-related pay has caused police to turn a blind eye to French crime, this is undoubtedly one of the causes of urban unrest.

Can anyone think of any solutions to France's problems? Does the welfare state have to be stripped back, in order to give people with too much time on their hands incentives to go out and get the jobs that'll keep them from burning cars and acting the thug? Are the jobs even out there in the first place? I reckon the solutions will have to be long-term anyway, probably involving the socio-economic situation of the banlieue-dwellers- how to do this I have no idea. But I reckon that if employment levels were higher those that have been rioting wouldn't have any reason to point to the colour of their skin, their religion or the origins of their grandparents and use it as scapegoat for their problems.

gaf1983

bonkey wrote:

Socialism didn't make them utterly dependant Sand. Losing their jobs did. And it wasn't socialism that lost them their jobs. It was a downturn in the capitalist-centric economy.

In fairness, socialist-centric economies experience downturns too, people lose jobs in all types of economies. Let's not turn this into a debate about what type of economy is the best at providing maximum employment, although it seems to be agreed here that unemployment is one of the root causes of the anger and criminality seen in the past days.

bonkey

gaf1983 wrote:

In fairness, socialist-centric economies experience downturns too, people lose jobs in all types of economies.

Sand has claimed that the problem with socialism is that it created this ghetto situation. This only makes sense if the people in the banlieu's don't actually want to work (which Sand has assumed), and doesn't explain why they had jobs when France had full employment.

I know socialist economies experience downturns - France is living proof of that. But Capitalist economies also suffer downturns.

My question was nmore about what would Sand have a nation do with its unemployed when a downturn in the market occurs. Let them starve on the streets, or give them social "handouts" - the very thing he was saying is the problem? I don't really see a third option, other than assuming that if a market is capitalist enough then it won't have a downturn. I was hoping he'd offer one.

Let's not turn this into a debate about what type of economy is the best at providing maximum employment,

Agreed.

although it seems to be agreed here that unemployment is one of the root causes of the anger and criminality seen in the past days.

Is it? Or is it a symptom of a deeper cause?

Many have blamed what they see as the "to integrate, you must become French" mentality of the French, which has led to the immigrants being effectively isolated and treated as second-class citizens which gievs rise to their discontent.

Others (like Sand) have blamed Socialist policies for basically paying these people to not work.

More have claimed (although not so much here) that its the inherent lazy & violent tendancies of these immigrant cultures which has led them to where they are.

In all three cases, unemployment is more a symptom then a cause.

Personally, I don't believe you can reduce these problems to a single issue. There are problems with integration (on both sides), and with the French social system. There are also a myriad of other factors.

Personally, I think the more important issue is whether something other than pontification will be done in the aftermath, and what that something will be.

lili

what is important to know is that the french of the 3rd generation with algerian roots don't understand why they have to be "integrated" they don't need, they are french. and they want to be considered as such.

lili

and sand, i disagree with you on french politics. being old enough for have experimenting right and left governments. i can say that we must have the dumbest right party on the world. i prefered when we was under socialism administration.

Sand

All I initially did was question your initial sweepnig statement that this is the problem with socialism - that these people have been made utterly dependant on the state. Socialism didn't make them utterly dependant Sand. Losing their jobs did. And it wasn't socialism that lost them their jobs. It was a downturn in the capitalist-centric economy. Sure, the social policies of teh French might have accelerated that, but they didn't cause it.

Bonkey, France and its model has as a recognised characteristic high, lasting unemployment-independant of the global economy. Other "anglo-saxon" influenced models may have short spells of adjustment to business cycles but dont have double digit unemployment for decades. The downturn which caused these people to lose their jobs, and which prevented the French economy from recovering to offer these people new jobs, and which thus made them utterly dependant on the state is a result of the economic model chosen by the French.

I take it back. You're right. None of them want jobs. they want to live in this squallor that they're rioting against. They want to be paid just enough to live in the very conditions that I think everyone here will agree are unacceptable and unsustainable. Its all socialism's fault. Socialism for engendering laziness, and that laziness which engenders violence.

Actually Bonkey, Id argue that the protectionist economic model should be scaled back drastically and employers encouraged to employ these people by the knowledge that if a downturn occurs, they wont be impossible to fire. Ive already argued that the system of handouts angers people, who want to have the self respect that comes from self-reliance - at its most basic, having a job. However, Ive already been told by yourself and Lili that if the system of handouts and benefits was scaled back, in favour of a business/employment friendly system, these people would die on the street because they would never get jobs in a cruel capitalist world. Despite being far cheaper to employ than say middle class French people. Which would make you think that middle class French people have an interest in keeping these people helpless wards of the state trapped in ghettos. Though thats very cynical of me.

I know socialist economies experience downturns - France is living proof of that. But Capitalist economies also suffer downturns.

Actually what France is living proof of is that capitalist orientated economies are far better at recovering from downturns.

My question was nmore about what would Sand have a nation do with its unemployed when a downturn in the market occurs. Let them starve on the streets, or give them social "handouts" - the very thing he was saying is the problem? I don't really see a third option, other than assuming that if a market is capitalist enough then it won't have a downturn. I was hoping he'd offer one.

Well how about revising the labour laws that discourage employers from hiring unskilled workers for starters? Oh right, I forgot. Unemployment in France is wholly unrelated to the economic model chosen so dismantling the protectionist system would have no effect. Right.

and sand, i disagree with you on french politics. being old enough for have experimenting right and left governments. i can say that we must have the dumbest right party on the world. i prefered when we was under socialism administration.

Lili, France doesnt have a right party. Parties like the French Communist Party, Workers Struggle and Revolutionary Communist Party actualy pick up votes and seats in a modern democracy! The closest thing France has to a right party is Chirac and Co. And theyre so far to the left they view Blairs New Labour as anarcho-capitalists. Apparently.

Hagar

I live in France. I came here last February. I know nothing of the politics or the socio-economics. I set up a small business. Went through the usual bull that goes with that. After a few months the business is supporting my family. There is work here if you want it. Work or lounge around on your arse and make your neighbourhood a ghetto. Its the same anywhere.

lili

Sand wrote:

Lili, France doesnt have a right party. Parties like the French Communist Party, Workers Struggle and Revolutionary Communist Party actualy pick up votes and seats in a modern democracy! The closest thing France has to a right party is Chirac and Co. And theyre so far to the left they view Blairs New Labour as anarcho-capitalists. Apparently.

first : what is provoking the downhill of our economy is the globalisation and the liberalism which let our industry at the mercy of the financialists which are more carreful to the american pensionnaires interests than the futur of our industry.
i would like to talk about the "co". the "co" called sarkozy, he is a follower of anglo-saxon policies. the best way to make grow up the precarity.
i don't want of a such guy at the head of my country.

lili

Hagar wrote:

I live in France. I came here last February. I know nothing of the politics or the socio-economics. I set up a small business. Went through the usual bull that goes with that. After a few months the business is supporting my family. There is work here if you want it. Work or lounge around on your arse and make your neighbourhood a ghetto. Its the same anywhere.

just make a test :
search a job or an appartment in france with an arabic name...

Hagar

Do what I did. I didn't ask for a job, I made one.
I bought my place for cash so I didn't need to rent.

But I do take your point. It may not be a easy as that dependent on your background.
That said they probably speak French a damn sight better than me.

Calina

Sand wrote:

Lili, France doesnt have a right party. Parties like the French Communist Party, Workers Struggle and Revolutionary Communist Party actualy pick up votes and seats in a modern democracy! The closest thing France has to a right party is Chirac and Co. And theyre so far to the left they view Blairs New Labour as anarcho-capitalists. Apparently.

I love the "apparently".

Firstly, there's nothing at all wrong with parties like the Communists, Works Struggale and Revolutionary Communist Party being able to pick up votes in a democracy. That's how a democracy works. In this country, for example, a bundle of terrorist apologists are masquerading as a left wing alternative and picking up votes no problem whatsoever. You might not like it, but it sure beats a dictatorship

As for whether France has a rightwing party or not, well, there's always the Front National. It picks up more than a few votes.

As to whether Chirac's gang are right or left wing, well personally I'd label them rightwing but not all that competent to be honest. If you were to put Nicolas Sarkozy in a ring against Tony Blair to identify the most rightwing of the two of them Sarkozy would win on a knock out in round one. And that's allowing for the fact that Tony Blair's gang are so rightwing that there are Labour activists permanently spinning in their graves in the UK and aspects of George Bush's policies look leftwing by comparison.

Ultimately, I get the impression you assume a rightwing party is better than a left wing party. I have to say that in general, centre left parties tend to have policies which benefit a greater number of people. The finances in the US are a total mess and have become so in a terribly scary short time, and that, under the stewardship of an extremely rightwing government.

No economy grows forever, regardless of right wing or left wing. It'd be nice that instead of sitting down going "my economy's better than yours and that's because I'm right or left (delete as applicable) wing", people sat down and pragmatically dealt with stuff. Like, the US could do something about cutting its spending deficit and France could do something about reassessing its regulation structure. This is not based on ideology, it's based on practicality.

Likewise, no economy remains mired in a mess forever. Take us for example. We were a total basketcase for a very long time, and in some respects, still are. But we're held up as an example of what to do right, despite barely functional public transport and a health service which...well it's not exactly well managed, is it? The French at least have roads, health, trains. The Germans too.

In other words, people's priorities are different. Given a choice between the French way and the American way, and the whole economic cycle thing remaining equal, I'd prefer France's way. There might not be so much spectacular wealth, but at least it's shared across a greater number of people.

pete

Sand wrote:

Lili, France doesnt have a right party. Parties like the French Communist Party, Workers Struggle and Revolutionary Communist Party actualy pick up votes and seats in a modern democracy! The closest thing France has to a right party is Chirac and Co. And theyre so far to the left they view Blairs New Labour as anarcho-capitalists. Apparently.

uhh did i just dream Le Pen's Front National, then? or do they not count?

The political platform of the Front National is mainly focused on the control of immigration, the repatriation of illegal immigrants and the priority of French citizens over foreigners for access to jobs and social services: in a standardized pamphlet delivered to all French electors in the 1995 presidential election, Jean-Marie Le Pen proposed the "sending back" of "three million non-Europeans" out of France, by "humane and dignified means". [3] However, in the campaign for the 2002 French presidential election, the stress was more on issues of law and order – one of the recurrent themes of the National Front is tougher law enforcement and higher sentences for crimes, and the reinstatement of the death penalty.

The National Front regularly campaigns against the "establishment", which encompasses the other political parties as well as most journalists. Le Pen lumped all major parties (PC, PS, UDF, RPR) into the "Gang of Four" (an allusion to Communist China's "Cultural Revolution"). According to Front rhetoric, the French right-wing parties are not true right-wing parties, and are almost indistinguishable from the "Socialo-Communist" left; the corrupt "establishment" is betraying France, and it opposes by all means the coming of the Front.

Other main positions include:

greater independence from the European Union and other international organizations; in 2002, withdrawal from the Euro was suggested, but the suggestion was then largely withdrawn;
the establishment of tariffs or other protectionist measures against cheap imports threatening the local agriculture or industry;
a return to more traditional values
in the family area: making abortion more difficult or even illegal; paying parents (mainly mothers) who raise children; refusing gay culture;
in the cultural area: refusing "aberrant" modern art and promoting local traditional culture.

sounds pretty right wing to me.

lili

hearing that there is no right party in france is quite funny:)

i must say that le front national share a lot valours with the ultra conservatives which rule US.

lili

Hagar wrote:

Do what I did. I didn't ask for a job, I made one.
I bought my place for cash so I didn't need to rent.

But I do take your point. It may not be a easy as that dependent on your background.
That said they probably speak French a damn sight better than me.

if you had the accord from banks for make your own business it's cool. if you found a place to make it, it's even coolest. i don't think that for a part of french population it's that easy.

gaf1983

pete wrote:

sounds pretty right wing to me.

I think Sand's point was that France doesn't have a party whose economic policies follow the liberal-capitalist one of the right wing parties of Ireland, The States and the UK - while le Front National may have right-wing social policies, it's economic policies are protectionist rather than embracing the free market.

lili

gaf1983 wrote:

I think Sand's point was that France doesn't have a party whose economic policies follow the liberal-capitalist one of the right wing parties of Ireland, The States and the UK - while le Front National may have right-wing social policies, it's economic policies are protectionist rather than embracing the free market.

before the globalisation we didn't need it. now, we go to this direction slowly but surely. that don't make my day.
by the way what the purpose of a right party? to please the patronat? if yes, then we have it.

Sand

As for whether France has a rightwing party or not, well, there's always the Front National. It picks up more than a few votes.

Lili and others echo this so Ill answer it all together. Xenophobic ultra-nationalism isnt a characteristic of "right" or "left" in any but the most simplistic "right wing"=evil, "left wing"=good summaries of politics. Heres the Nazi party manifesto. Skip down through the typical racist/nationalist demands to their economic policy. Does it remind you more of the free market libertarians or the modern social democrats?

What Le Pen represents is not a right wing "small government" party but xenophobic ultra nationalists who want to use big government to discriminate against people.

uhh did i just dream Le Pen's Front National, then? or do they not count?

the establishment of tariffs or other protectionist measures against cheap imports threatening the local agriculture or industry.

No, you just apparently believe that right wing idealogy calls for tarriffs, protectionism and government planned economies...Mind you, in French terms it probably does.

In other words, people's priorities are different. Given a choice between the French way and the American way, and the whole economic cycle thing remaining equal, I'd prefer France's way. There might not be so much spectacular wealth, but at least it's shared across a greater number of people.

Unfortunately that system marginalises the poorest and drives a wedge between them in their government reservations, and the real world. All whilst apparently trying to help them.

i must say that le front national share a lot valours with the ultra conservatives which rule US.

A love of France? Doubt it.

pete

Sand wrote:

No, you just apparently believe that right wing idealogy calls for tarriffs, protectionism and government planned economies.

Oh you mean tariffs and protectionism like the US government (they're still right wing, right?) uses when it suits them?

On March 22, 2002 the worst fears of the Canadian lumber industry were realised as the US Department of Commerce imposed punishing duties of 29% on imports of Canadian softwood lumber into the United States.

Ironically, the announcement came at a time when President Bush was in Mexico extolling the potential benefits of free trade with Central America. The imposition of the substantial duty comes onthe heels of an American decision to place tariffs of up to 30% on several types of imported steel.

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/pubs/exp/exp0202.pdf



But I'm sorry - If I'd known you were apparently cherry-picking the parts of "right wing ideology" that suited your argument I'd have stayed out of this one.

Carry on.

Sand

Actually Pete, I would and have used that exact same example of protectionism on the part of Bush and Co to argue that they are not idealogically right wing, certainly not the radical right wing extremists theyre painted as by the left.

I was even going to use it when Catalina/Lili mentioned the current US administration as being extremely right wing or words to that effect, but decided not to on the grounds of couldnt-be-arsed/not important to topic. Religous bible thumping isnt a defining characteristic of right wing idealogy either, other than religious groups prefer small government that doesnt dictate to them - unless of course they feel they can take over the government, in which case theyre all in favour of big government pursuing their agenda.

lili

le front national is a right party, an extrem one but still a right one. proof is that sarkozy try to get the votes of their followers.
we can't call a party which reached 18% of votes at the last elections as a tiny one. they do have a program (a right wing one) even if what makes them so powerful is xenophobic agenda. they put the republic and its valours in danger. the way their followers wawing the national flag makes me think a lot of some patriotic or let's call them nationalistic countries.

france is a laic country, but i noticed that those who go to the church are often those who vote at the right, they are often from the countryside.

Captain Trips

lili wrote:

even if what makes them so powerful is xenophobic agenda. they put the republic and its valours in danger. the way their followers wawing the national flag makes me think a lot of some patriotic or let's call them nationalistic countries.

You mean like Switzerland? They make the US population look unpatriotic there are so many flags everywhere. It works just fine for 700 years, apparently.

lili

Captain Trips wrote:

You mean like Switzerland? They make the US population look unpatriotic there are so many flags everywhere. It works just fine for 700 years, apparently.

hehe.

well, i thought more about US or serbia.

frankly, try to find out an american movie without an american flag in it.

Sand

le front national is a right party, an extrem one but still a right one. proof is that sarkozy try to get the votes of their followers.

Xenophobic ultra-nationalism isnt a characteristic of "right" or "left" in any but the most simplistic "right wing"=evil, "left wing"=good summaries of politics.

france is a laic country, but i noticed that those who go to the church are often those who vote at the right, they are often from the countryside.

Makes you wonder why the riots are in the cities when so many good left wingers live there then?

lili

Sand wrote:

Makes you wonder why the riots are in the cities when so many good left wingers live there then?

what do you mean? do you think that if they had the possibility to make riots in the 16th district of paris, they wouldn't?