Re: Million demonstrators in France
At 03/05/02 09:15 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: >In a sense, your question reveals a different understanding of the >role of elections. I agree with Lenin's approach. They are >opportunities to raise socialist ideas. If a revolutionary party ever >came close to winning a national election, the bourgeoisie would >resort to a coup or fascism. > >"Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments >and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within >them because it is there that you will still find workers who are >duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; >otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags." > >http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/lwc/ch07.htm > >But Lenin never urged a vote for a bourgeois party. That was Stalin's >innovation who simply appropriated the disastrous "lesser evil" >electoral policy of the German Socialist Party. Louis Proyect is correct that in the brutally entitled "Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder", Lenin does not describe the British Labour Party at the time as a bourgeois party. I agree with Jurriaan that we should not take quotations from Lenin mechanically But marxism is meant to be a method and it is possible to read Lenin's article, to consider the method and to decide how to apply it here, and whether that would be useful. Louis Proyect is not "correct" in saying in another post on the French election >What people do in the privacy of the ballot booth is their own business. I >wouldn't dream of telling individual human beings not to believe in god, >for that matter. Lenin's approach in LWD,ID is to pay a lot of attention to the consciousness of the masses, and whether they have illusions in a party. So the *way* they cast their ballots is crucial to the analysis. When progressive people have some illusions in a party then it may need to be supported, he argued. Hear the striking and tactless words about the way a rope supports a hanged man: (from Chapter 9) >At present, British Communists very often find it hard even to approach >the masses, and even to get a hearing from them. If I come out as a >Communist and call upon them to vote for Henderson and against Lloyd >George, they will certainly give me a hearing. And I shall be able to >explain in a popular manner, not only why the Soviets are better than a >parliament and why the dictatorship of the proletariat is better than the >dictatorship of Churchill (disguised with the signboard of bourgeois >"democracy"), but also that, with my vote, I want to support Henderson in >the same way as the rope supports a hanged man -- that the impending >establishment of a government of the Hendersons will prove that I am >right, will bring the masses over to my side, and will hasten the >political death of the Hendersons and the Snowdens just as was the case >with their kindred spirits in Russia and Germany. > >If the objection is raised that these tactics are too "subtle" or too >complex for the masses to understand, that these tactics will split and >scatter our forces, will prevent us from concentrating them on Soviet >revolution, etc., I will reply to the "Left objectors: don't ascribe your >doctrinairism to the masses! Don't underestimate their intelligence! Now in the situation in France Chirac is an openly bourgeois politican and there are no illusions in him at all! Despite being the incumbent president he got a ludicrous 20% of the poll. Everyone knows that. Everyone knows he has various charges hanging over his head which are not being investigated while he is president. If they vote for the crook not the fascist they know well enough they are supporting him like a rope supports a hanged man. The political crunch is this concretely today. There has been a massive demonstration of a million people in France. Opinion polls predict a much higher vote next Sunday. Louis Proyect and others of a sectarian disposition clearly do not particularly want to see a lot of people going to the polls. For him it is a private affair, like whether you believe in God. Relying on others defeating Le Pen. But every additional million who come out to vote for the crook Chirac, who did not bother last Sunday, are not supporting Chirac! except like a rope supports a hanged man The act of solidarity will not be misunderstood so long as the left then criticises Chirac, and prepares for stronger resistance in a united front against fascism, yes, and the causes of fascism. That danger of fascism does not come from Chirac's " policies", Louis. Chirac is merely a vehicle of history. These are the tectonic workings of late finance capital which is intensifying the exploitation of the mass of working people at home, while creating ever increasing global migration unprecented in the history of the world. This creates endless occasions for conflict between working people about the price of thei
Re: RE: Re: [PEN-L:25639: Million demonstrators in France
I am glad to see that you are formatting your messages. On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 05:03:22PM -0700, michael pugliese wrote: > >See, "Fascism, Anti-Fascism and Marxists, " by Larry Ceplair, > Columbia Univ. Press. David Beetham has a similiar book. A new > huge book ($35, pb.) by Geoff Eley on the 20th century Euroleft > also has extensive background. Michael Pugliese P.S. "The Communist > Movement," two. vols. by Fernando Claudin of the PCE, published > by Monthly Review Press and for a counterpoint the acerbic volume > by F. Furet on Communism published by the Free Press or Basic > Books. Cf. the very new book of letters to and fro from far rightist, > Ernst Nolte and Furet. Michael Pugliese --- Original Message > --- > >From: Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Date: 5/3/02 3:05:19 PM > > > > >At 03/05/02 08:29 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: > > > >>My last post on this question dealt with the treachery of the > SP. But > >>the CP was equally culpable. It refused to bloc with the SP, > which it > >>called "Social Fascist". > > > >Absolutely. An example of all struggle is wrong. > > > > > >Chris Burford > > > > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: [PEN-L:25639: Million demonstrators in France
See, "Fascism, Anti-Fascism and Marxists, " by Larry Ceplair, Columbia Univ. Press. David Beetham has a similiar book. A new huge book ($35, pb.) by Geoff Eley on the 20th century Euroleft also has extensive background. Michael Pugliese P.S. "The Communist Movement," two. vols. by Fernando Claudin of the PCE, published by Monthly Review Press and for a counterpoint the acerbic volume by F. Furet on Communism published by the Free Press or Basic Books. Cf. the very new book of letters to and fro from far rightist, Ernst Nolte and Furet. Michael Pugliese --- Original Message --- >From: Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: 5/3/02 3:05:19 PM > >At 03/05/02 08:29 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: > >>My last post on this question dealt with the treachery of the SP. But >>the CP was equally culpable. It refused to bloc with the SP, which it >>called "Social Fascist". > >Absolutely. An example of all struggle is wrong. > > >Chris Burford > >
Re: [PEN-L:25639: Million demonstrators in France
At 03/05/02 08:29 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: >My last post on this question dealt with the treachery of the SP. But >the CP was equally culpable. It refused to bloc with the SP, which it >called "Social Fascist". Absolutely. An example of all struggle is wrong. Chris Burford
Re: Million demonstrators in France
On Fri, 03 May 2002 22:40:40 +0200, Jurriaan Bendien wrote: >What is left out from Louis's comments is that >as a matter of fact many left-wing voters WILL >vote for Chirac simply to keep Le Pen out (after >all, the presidency is a very powerful position >in the French state), without having any >illusions about the nature of rightwing politics >or about bourgeois elections, and without >ceasing their resolute opposition to the forces >both Chirac and Le Pen represent for a moment. What people do in the privacy of the ballot booth is their own business. I wouldn't dream of telling individual human beings not to believe in god, for that matter. My only point is that Chirac and LePen are dialectically related, just as Tony Blair and the BNP are. It makes no sense to wink one's eye at voting for Chirac, or openly trying to stampede people into voting for him, when Chirac's policies have created the conditions for xenophobia and worse. -- Louis Proyect, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 05/03/2002 Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org
Million demonstrators in France
What is left out from Louis's comments is that as a matter of fact many left-wing voters WILL vote for Chirac simply to keep Le Pen out (after all, the presidency is a very powerful position in the French state), without having any illusions about the nature of rightwing politics or about bourgeois elections, and without ceasing their resolute opposition to the forces both Chirac and Le Pen represent for a moment. All the LCR appears to be saying is that "you're not wrong to do that", it is not worth making a big fuss about, create disunity or alienate (potential) supporters for that reason alone. If Chirac gets elected with (let's say) 80 percent of the vote, nobody will believe he has that much support, and it will not mean very much. The real point is that, if the polls are to be believed, Chirac will beat Le Pen hands down anyway, regardless of what far-left or centrist voters do, so that LO's more "principled" stand is on solid ground. I don't think that the issue of how best to advance the movement today will be solved by quoting precedents from Lenin's time.
Re: RE: Re: Re: Million demonstrators in France
On Fri, 3 May 2002 13:43:26 +0100, Davies, Daniel wrote: >Two questions: > >1) How does one use one's vote to "promote >socialism" in a two-candidate race between a >conservative and a fascist? In a sense, your question reveals a different understanding of the role of elections. I agree with Lenin's approach. They are opportunities to raise socialist ideas. If a revolutionary party ever came close to winning a national election, the bourgeoisie would resort to a coup or fascism. "Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags." http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/lwc/ch07.htm But Lenin never urged a vote for a bourgeois party. That was Stalin's innovation who simply appropriated the disastrous "lesser evil" electoral policy of the German Socialist Party. >2) Given (1), how is the decision to vote >Chirac incompatible with the promotion of >socialism? Of course. Our primary task is to educate working people that they have different class interests from the owners of the means of production. >It is not as if the French socialists are >actually supporting Chirac, or making common >cause; they continue to promote their own party >as being a better choice for the parliamentary >elections and as Chris Burford pointed out, >"Vote for the crook, not the fascist" is hardly >a ringing endorsement. The American SDS said something like this in 1964, "Part of the Way with LBJ" (as opposed to the official slogan "All the Way with LBJ". The Communist Party had a hysterical campaign about the need "to stop the war-mongering Goldwater". Look what it got the left, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. >It seems to me that the current French election >is a reductio ad absurdum of the proposition >that to advocate a vote for a bourgeois party is >always and everywhere a mockery of socialist >principles. Well, look. There are all kinds of socialists. Albert Shanker was a leader of the SDUSA, while his teachers union included Trotskyists. Part of our job is to draw clear lines of demarcation between genuine socialism and pro-capitalist ideologues who call themselves socialists, if you gather my drift. This has been a problem since the days when the Lasalleists in the German Social Democracy backed the Kaiser because of his "enlightened" social policies. Marx answered them with Critique of the Gotha Program. This is an unending job because of the ability of the ruling class to exert enormous pressure on our ranks. -- Louis Proyect, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 05/03/2002 Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: RE: Re: Re: Million demonstrators in France
Davies, Daniel wrote: >1) How does one use one's vote to "promote socialism" in a two-candidate >race between a conservative and a fascist? Didn't some people once say "After Hitler, us"? Doug
RE: Re: Re: Million demonstrators in France
On Thu, 02 May 2002 21:08:06 -0700, Sabri Oncu wrote: >Louis, > >>Why should French socialists not work on >>building the ranks of the left while sharpening >>its understanding of class principles and vote >>for Chirac at the same time to ensure that Le >>Pen is stopped this time? If they vote Chirac on >>May 5 does it mean that they support Chirac? Not >>that if they abstain they will make much >>difference but why take chances? >Socialists must promote socialism. To advocate a vote for a bourgeois >party makes a mockery of socialist principles. Two questions: 1) How does one use one's vote to "promote socialism" in a two-candidate race between a conservative and a fascist? 2) Given (1), how is the decision to vote Chirac incompatible with the promotion of socialism? It is not as if the French socialists are actually supporting Chirac, or making common cause; they continue to promote their own party as being a better choice for the parliamentary elections and as Chris Burford pointed out, "Vote for the crook, not the fascist" is hardly a ringing endorsement. It seems to me that the current French election is a reductio ad absurdum of the proposition that to advocate a vote for a bourgeois party is always and everywhere a mockery of socialist principles. dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication is for the attention of the named recipient only and should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. ___
Re: Re: Million demonstrators in France
On Thu, 02 May 2002 21:08:06 -0700, Sabri Oncu wrote: >Louis, > >Why should French socialists not work on >building the ranks of the left while sharpening >its understanding of class principles and vote >for Chirac at the same time to ensure that Le >Pen is stopped this time? If they vote Chirac on >May 5 does it mean that they support Chirac? Not >that if they abstain they will make much >difference but why take chances? Socialists must promote socialism. To advocate a vote for a bourgeois party makes a mockery of socialist principles. There is always enormous pressure on the left to cross class lines. You'll notice that members of the ruling class never urge a vote for revolutionary politicians. They seem to understand their class interests better than some woozy leftists. >Now who is guilty? Social Democrats or >Communists or both or all the rest other than >the Nazis? Again, I am just talking about the >numbers. My last post on this question dealt with the treachery of the SP. But the CP was equally culpable. It refused to bloc with the SP, which it called "Social Fascist". They actually backed a Nazi initiative to unseat an SP elected official in Saxony--something they called a "Red Referendum". -- Louis Proyect, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 05/03/2002 Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Million demonstrators in France
Chris writes: > The only tactically sound and strategically > correct position for genuine left-wingers > within a united front is *not* one of complete > unity. They should struggle to strengthen the > united front *while* getting a hearing from more > people and strengthening the forces of the left > within the united front. You see, *my friend*, Here, I am with you, as I have always been. Further, I go one step beyond and advocate what Gunder Frank does: unity in diversity and diversity in unity. How are we going to this is beyond me. If I knew the answer, we would have had the solutions to all the problems of the world. Best, Sabri P.S: Hugs, love, and all that garbage, too. By the way, I recently got this from a friend: Everybody loves a "whistle-blower", a critic who exposes wrong-doing. Unless they "blow the whistle on you". Then..
Re: Million demonstrators in France
At 02/05/02 19:44 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: >On Thu, 02 May 2002 23:24:33 +0100, Chris Burford wrote: > >While would-be marxists may have a low opinion > >of bourgeois elections, it was something of a > >problem that the German Nazi Party did come > >first in the elections in 1933 and their leader > >was chosen as chancellor. > >This is not really how Hitler came to power. Hitler's seizure of >power was preceded by a series of rightward drifting governments, all >of which paved the way for him. The SP found reasons to back each and >every one of these governments in the name of the "lesser evil". >(This is an argument we have heard from some leftists in the United >States: "Clinton is not as bad as Bush"; "Johnson is not as bad as >Goldwater, etc." The problem with this strategy is that allows the >ruling class to limit the options available to the oppressed. The >lesser evil is still evil.) Of course that is a feeble and tailist position. But Louis Proyect is not addressing the kernel of the issue. The only tactically sound and strategically correct position for genuine left-wingers within a united front is *not* one of complete unity. They should struggle to strengthen the united front *while* getting a hearing from more people and strengthening the forces of the left within the united front. Concretely in France many of that million who demonstrated on 1st May encouraging a vote against Le Pen, knowing full well that "a crook" is the alternative will be more determined to fight in the Assembly elections for a more genuine left result. After all the slogan "Vote for the crook, not the fascist" hardly spreads illusions among the working class! All unity and no struggle is a wrong policy. But so is all struggle and no unity. Does that really need to be spelled out? Chris Burford
Re: Million demonstrators in France
Louis writes: > Ultimately, there will be a battle between > socialists and fascists just as there was > in the past. For success in such a battle, > we need to build the ranks of the left while > sharpening its understanding of class principles. > The same sort of attempts to dull this > understanding that took place during the 1920s > and 30s are obviously at work today. Louis, Why should French socialists not work on building the ranks of the left while sharpening its understanding of class principles and vote for Chirac at the same time to ensure that Le Pen is stopped this time? If they vote Chirac on May 5 does it mean that they support Chirac? Not that if they abstain they will make much difference but why take chances? By the way, here are the votes for the Nazis, SPD (Social Democrats) and KPD(Communists) for the below elections: 1930 September, Nazi (18.9%), SPD (24.5%), KPD(13.1%) 1932 July, Nazi (37.3%), SPD (21.6%), KPD(14.3%) 1932 November, Nazi (33.1%), SPD(20.4%), KPD(16.9%) I got these numbers from "Socialism for a Sceptical Age", Ralph Miliband, 1994. Let us forget about everything else and just look at these numbers. Except in July 1932, Communists and Social Democrats put together were beating the Nazis. Now who is guilty? Social Democrats or Communists or both or all the rest other than the Nazis? Again, I am just talking about the numbers. The conditions in France and the rest of the world are different today but how do we know what the future will bring us? Best, Sabri
Re: Re: Re: Million demonstrators in France
On Thu, 02 May 2002 23:24:33 +0100, Chris Burford wrote: >While would-be marxists may have a low opinion >of bourgeois elections, it was something of a >problem that the German Nazi Party did come >first in the elections in 1933 and their leader >was chosen as chancellor. This is not really how Hitler came to power. Hitler's seizure of power was preceded by a series of rightward drifting governments, all of which paved the way for him. The SP found reasons to back each and every one of these governments in the name of the "lesser evil". (This is an argument we have heard from some leftists in the United States: "Clinton is not as bad as Bush"; "Johnson is not as bad as Goldwater, etc." The problem with this strategy is that allows the ruling class to limit the options available to the oppressed. The lesser evil is still evil.) The last "lesser evil" candidate the German Social Democracy urged support for was Paul Von Hindenburg, a top general in W.W.I.. The results were disastrous. Hindenburg took office on April 10 of 1932 and basically paved the way for Adolph Hitler. Hindenburg allowed the Nazi street thugs to rule the streets, but enforced the letter of the law against the working-class parties. Elections may have been taking place according to the Weimar constitution, but real politics was being shaped in the streets through the demonstrations and riots of Nazi storm-troopers. As these Nazi street actions grew more violent and massive, Hindenburg reacted on May 31 by making Franz Von Papen chancellor and instructed him to pick a cabinet "above the parties", a clear Bonapartist move. Such a cabinet wouldn't placate the Nazis. All they wanted to do was smash bourgeois democracy. As the civil war in the streets continued, Papen dissolved the Reichstag and called for new elections on July 31, 1932. On July 17, the Nazis held a march through Altona, a working class neighborhood, under police protection. The provocation resulted in fighting that left 19 dead and 285 wounded. The SP and CP were not able to mount a significant counteroffensive and the right-wing forces gathered self-confidence and support from "centrist" voters. When elections were finally held on July 31, the Nazi party received the most votes and took power. But the results had been decided long ago due to the spinelessness of the reformists. -- Louis Proyect, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 05/02/2002 Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Million demonstrators in France
Whatever the political differences of analysis, it is disappointing that Louis Proyect can see no occasion to celebrate the massive May Day demonstrations in France. At 02/05/02 08:26 -0400, you wrote: > >The battle of principle however must also be won > >against those who distort marxism to argue that > >it would be "class teachery" to vote for Chirac > >in the present circumstances. > > > >IMHO of course. > > > >Chris Burford > >It makes no sense to vote for Chirac since his policies as Prime >Minister in the past were exactly those that created openings for the >far right in the first place. True by no means all of the demonstrators will vote for Chirac against Le Pen. We will not know until Sunday how many do. But the point is not the point that Louis suggests. The issue is not Chirac's policies: it is a choice between a candidate with openly fascist leanings and one without. The presidential election is now symbolic. If the left, and presumably most of the demonstrators on May Day were from the left, maintain this momentum, they will move on after the presidential election to mobilise for the election of socialist and other progressive deputies on policy grounds. > In any case, Chirac's return to power will only boost >the ranks of the far left and the far right in much the same way that >centrist, do-nothing governments did in Germany in the 1920s. I do not understand this muddled assertion at all. For the political battle the assembly elections are much more important. >Ultimately, there will be a battle between socialists and fascists >just as there was in the past. For success in such a battle, we need >to build the ranks of the left while sharpening its understanding of >class principles. The same sort of attempts to dull this >understanding that took place during the 1920s and 30s are obviously >at work today. There seems to be unanimity that the Socialist Party of France did not run an authoritative campaign that led the agenda. The problem with Louis's formulations is that they are stuck in a time warp which appears not to be able to learn from history. While would-be marxists may have a low opinion of bourgeois elections, it was something of a problem that the German Nazi Party did come first in the elections in 1933 and their leader was chosen as chancellor. I find Louis's comments here confused about how a repeat of the historic battle "between socialists and fascists" will avoid making the same mistakes as in Germany of splitting the vote between social democrats and revolutionary socialists. The question he seems to not answer is the need on occasions for a united front against fascism, which includes dubious capitalists. While I think Romaine Kroes has some interesting points about international finance and while I agree that imposing a neo-liberal agenda to keep Europe competitive, places hard burdens on working people, I cannot accept that it is desirable for working people in France to regard the difference between Chirac and Le Pen as the same as that between cholera and the plague. The consequences are frightening. By contrast the million demonstrators are an encouraging sign of a determination to resist Le Pen, while knowing that the alternatives are far from perfect. Chris Burford
Re: Re: Million demonstrators in France
I completely agree with Louis. Additionally, as the crisis deepens due to the maintaining policy of Maastrich's European integration, we are not ensured of not experiencing the come back of death penalty and xenophobia under Chirac as under Le Pen. Sunday, I shall not go and choose between plague and cholera. RK
Re: Million demonstrators in France
>The battle of principle however must also be won >against those who distort marxism to argue that >it would be "class teachery" to vote for Chirac >in the present circumstances. > >IMHO of course. > >Chris Burford It makes no sense to vote for Chirac since his policies as Prime Minister in the past were exactly those that created openings for the far right in the first place. As an aggressive defender of neoliberalism under the rubric of "European unity", he provoked two opposed responses. The socialists and the left challenged the need to enrol France in a race to the bottom. The far right instead proposed that France move in a more nationalist direction, including a ban on immigration. In any case, Chirac's return to power will only boost the ranks of the far left and the far right in much the same way that centrist, do-nothing governments did in Germany in the 1920s. Ultimately, there will be a battle between socialists and fascists just as there was in the past. For success in such a battle, we need to build the ranks of the left while sharpening its understanding of class principles. The same sort of attempts to dull this understanding that took place during the 1920s and 30s are obviously at work today. The Irish Times, December 21, 1995, CITY EDITION Strikes in France expose gulf of incomprehension between rulers and ruled Negotiations will open today in France in an attempt to solve the country's worst social crisis in nearly 30 years. Kathryn Hone in Paris examines the long term implications of a winter of discontent BYLINE: By KATYRYN HONE DATELINE: PARIS FRANCE will not be having a traditional Christmas this year. Those Christmas tills that usually ring throughout December have been largely silent throughout the three weeks of a national upheaval on a scale not seen since May 1968. Everyone is a little poorer. Despite the uneasy social truce as trains return to the rails, everyone is wondering what will happen in the new year, astonished both the French and their European partners, not just because no one saw it coming but also because of the depth of popular feeling it unleashed. France, which seemed sullen but anaesthetised under its new President, Mr Jacques Chirac, suddenly woke up. As many as two million people were motivated to march in the streets of their cities. The "drop that made the vase overflow", as the French say, was the attempt by the Prime Minister, Mr Alain Juppe in an excess of zeal to introduce several fundamental reforms at the same time. On top of the heaviest rise in indirect taxation for years and a freeze on public service pay, he loaded a "rationalisation" plan for the indebted state railway company, SNCF, an end to civil servants hard-won retirement privileges, and a streamlining of the social security system, imposing limits on health spending. What was new about the strike that followed was that it managed to retain the sympathy of a majority of the public, despite the hardships and loss of income it produced. Deprived of trains, people walked or hitched or cycled to work, but most doggedly maintained that the rail workers and bus drivers were right to protest. Into the breach opened by striking railway workers, postal staff, teachers or electricians surged in a huge wave of general discontent. Its target was not only rejection of the so-called Juppe Plan to reform the health service but a more general rejection of France's elite ruling class. Many political leaders, including Mr Juppe and President Chirac, are the product of the exclusive Ecole Nationale d'Administration (ENA), a training college for senior civil servants and decision-makers. The resulting "enarques" as they are nicknamed, or graduates from other grandes ecoles, make up the bulk of the country's politicians, captains of industry, economic advisers and ministerial cabinets. Such an education tends to produce technocrats more inclined to see politics as economic management than as involving decisions with human dimensions. The sociologist, Mr Edgar Mario pointed out this week that these elites have been trained in compartmentalised thinking which tends to dismiss all aspects that are not quantifiable, such as anguish and human suffering. They are seen as having sold out to what another sociologist and supporter of the strikes. Mr Pierre Bourdieu, described last week as "the new Leviathan" market forces and global competition. While the technocrats in ministerial offices talk about meeting the Maastricht criteria and qualifying for a single currency, down at street level people see nothing but higher taxes, more belt-tightening and the threat of unemployment. "Our problem", one postal worker said this week, "is that for 10 years we have been asked to make sacrifices, but we can no longer see what the object is. There is no light at the end of the tunnel." In response to the anguish of a generation exposed to
Million demonstrators in France
At 30/04/02 23:46 +0100, I wrote: >It is therefore a matter of *principle* for a left winger in France *to* >vote for Chirac in the next round of the presidential elections and to >argue why, and to argue why it is also necessary to continue the criticism >of Chirac and to get a better left vote in the assembly elections, and to >continue campaigning for progressive causes outside the assembly. Yesterday was encouraging. This united front promises some further opportunities for leftists within it. Provided they do not fall into the trap of all unity and no struggle within the united front. But with a million on the streets, why should they? The battle of principle however must also be won against those who distort marxism to argue that it would be "class teachery" to vote for Chirac in the present circumstances. IMHO of course. Chris Burford London
