Len Pen first to pick up on right/left rust

[fluffybiscuits]

'Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn blamed incumbent French President Nicolas Sarkozy for the success of far-right candidate Marine Le Pen in France‘s elections.

"If I were the president of the [French] Republic, I would ask myself why one out of five people in France are now voting for the National Front," Asselborn said before the start of an EU foreign ministers meeting in Luxembourg

Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said he was "concerned" by attitudes not just "against an open society, but also an open Europe," and noted that they are present "not only on the far right, but also the far left."

The fact that Le Pen secured 18% of the vote in the first round of the French presidential elections "has to give us food for thought," Austrian Foreign Minister Michael Spindelegger said.'

http://www.euractiv.com/elections/eu...s-news-512328#

Those damned voters. Upsetting the political class like that. Too right one has to wonder why one in five voters voted for Marine Le Pen.

Because they feel railroaded by the corrupt and dishonest political class in Brussels and they don't trust the Hollande socialists with the issues that concern them- thats why.

Thinking about it, my mate e mailed me today to discuss the rise of far right politics in Europe and why its working out for the extreme right in most of Europe. The far right are under the illusion that people are genuinely interested in their policies, their ideas and politicians. That is just a mist, the real reason they are being voted for is a little less obvious. People are sick and tired of the status quo that we have at the moment and anyone who comes along with populist clap trap is going to get the masses orgasming at the thoughts of economic recovery. Melenchon in the meanwhile has told Hollande not to venture near the FN vote as they will entrap him (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...83N19020120424) . I do believe we should never argue with idiots as they drag us down to their level and beat us with experience, that is what may happen to Hollande if he chases the FN vote. Arab bashing, Islamaphobia etc are best ignored as election topics and legislation introduced to curb their spread once he gets in....

[antiestablishmentarian]

This is nothing new from the far-right (they always try to 'cut across class interests' by appealing in the name of the Nation to the masses), and the present crisis is not so much a conflict of nation-states versus corporations as a struggle between ordinary people on the one hand and the establishment on the other, with the State acting as an enforcer and debt collector on behalf of the ruling classes, as it always has done.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

And why are the pre-decimal left always left whinging on the sideline about 'populism'? Because socialist theory is not populist.

Socialists will not engage and steal the political ground from the far right because of their inveterate disdain for one of the only institutions beyond the family and local community that chime with the electorate- the nation.

The nation as a concept is politically incorrect to much of the left and therefore they continually ghetto-ise their appeal to the electorate and leave the way open for anyone on the right to speak of the nation as a code for society.

It is hardly surprising that the electorate that everyone needs- the great unrepresented middle- will turn to the definite responses of the right when socialism fails to deal with an element of realiity in the lives of those they wish to govern.

The pre-decimal right would be mad to pass up that continually open goal handed to them by the pre-decimal left.

And what is 'populism'? Otherwise known as democracy. Populism is not wrong because voters are never wrong in a democracy. Where someone suggests criminal actions against a minority then it is an attempt to misuse populism and democracy- but populism is not wrong in and of itself. Every time the far right in any country succeeds in elections it is both their success at identifying a constituency and the left's failure to engage with or deal with it.

[antiestablishmentarian]

[quote=Captain Con O'Sullivan;243420]

And why are the pre-decimal left always left whinging on the sideline about 'populism'? Because socialist theory is not populist.

Who on the 'pre-decimal left' devotes any time to whinging about populism?

Socialists will not engage and steal the political ground from the far right because of their inveterate disdain for one of the only institutions beyond the family and local community that chime with the electorate- the nation.

The political ground of the far-right is blaming migrants or those of other colours or creeds, be they Muslim, Roma, Jew or Freethinker, for the ills of society at a given point. Socialists rightly do not engage in their type of politics, pandering to predjudice, nor should they.

The nation as a concept is politically incorrect to much of the left and therefore they continually ghetto-ise their appeal to the electorate and leave the way open for anyone on the right to speak of the nation as a code for society.

You obviously haven't read Lenin's position on the national question...

It is hardly surprising that the electorate that everyone needs- the great unrepresented middle- will turn to the definite responses of the right when socialism fails to deal with an element of realiity in the lives of those they wish to govern.

Definite answers? The only people who turned en masse to Le Pen are alienated voters from poor areas in the deindustrialised regions, the 'unrepresented middle' in France vote overwhelmingly for Sarko, Hollande or Bayrou. In any case there is very little 'definite' about the FN's policies, given their flip-flop from libertarian free-marketism to their present demand for a strong welfare state and state intervention in the economy, they are charlatans.

And what is 'populism'? Otherwise known as democracy. Populism is not wrong because voters are never wrong in a democracy. Where someone suggests criminal actions against a minority then it is an attempt to misuse populism and democracy- but populism is not wrong in and of itself. Every time the far right in any country succeeds in elections it is both their success at identifying a constituency and the left's failure to engage with or deal with it.

Not really, the success or lack of it for the far-right varies according to different conditions. The UK, for instance, lacks a strong far-right because the Tories moved so far to the right under Thatcher (and remain there) they occupied much of the space the far-right usually seeks to fill.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

[quote=antiestablishmentarian;243441][quote=Captain Con O'Sullivan;243420]

Who on the 'pre-decimal left' devotes any time to whinging about populism?

The 'dangers of populism' is a code word among the old redundant left for 'fascism'.

The full horror of the people actualy insisting that politicians actually do what they want. It was quite popular at the birth of democracy but disappeared with the arrival of the traditional western political party- left or right.

The political ground of the far-right is blaming migrants or those of other colours or creeds, be they Muslim, Roma, Jew or Freethinker, for the ills of society at a given point. Socialists rightly do not engage in their type of politics, pandering to predjudice, nor should they.

Well then they are absent from the conversation. Case closed. You have just labelled one in five french voters as 'prejudiced'. Because they won't adhere to political correctness.

You obviously haven't read Lenin's position on the national question...

Why should I?

Definite answers? The only people who turned en masse to Le Pen are alienated voters from poor areas in the deindustrialised regions, the 'unrepresented middle' in France vote overwhelmingly for Sarko, Hollande or Bayrou. In any case there is very little 'definite' about the FN's policies, given their flip-flop from libertarian free-marketism to their present demand for a strong welfare state and state intervention in the economy, they are charlatans.

Still. The FN appear to have all the time in the world to do so- unopposed because the left are too busy turning up their noses at 'populism' and waiting for the people of the world to be inspired by the divine light of socialism apparently.

Not really, the success or lack of it for the far-right varies according to different conditions. The UK, for instance, lacks a strong far-right because the Tories moved so far to the right under Thatcher (and remain there) they occupied much of the space the far-right usually seeks to fill.

And why was Thatcher made electable and such a swing to a right ideology possible? Because of the total balls made of the economy by pseudo socialists who handed Margaret Thatcher her constituency on a plate. Point proven I think.

Not only that the entirely theoretical 'socialists' of Blair and Brown turned out to be quite fraudulent didn't they? Half the people one meets advocating socialism would be advocating pragmatism in the unlikely event they'e ever reach office and that pragmatism would be a prelude to turning into a management consultant.

What do socialists want? Numerous turns at the wheel while they fiddle around and adjust their theories to the correct pitch? Every time anything either remotely socialist gets anywhere near power it makes a pitch for the centre ground in order to be elected (Blair) or flails around lost in ideology that does not answer in a modern economy.

If it weren't for Briish socialists there wouldn't have been any Thatcher.

[antiestablishmentarian]

[quote=Captain Con O'Sullivan;243456][quote=antiestablishmentarian;243441][quote=Captain Con O'Sullivan;243420]

The 'dangers of populism' is a code word among the old redundant left for 'fascism'.

Jesus wept.

The full horror of the people actualy insisting that politicians actually do what they want. It was quite popular at the birth of democracy but disappeared with the arrival of the traditional western political party- left or right.

Which is what the left actually demands in Ireland- they want instant recall so politicians who don't do their job can be thrown out straight away and a by-election held to replace them.

Well then they are absent from the conversation. Case closed. You have just labelled one in five french voters as 'prejudiced'. Because they won't adhere to political correctness.

Political correctness? Calling for a ban on halal is 'not adering to political correctness'. Getting sucked into 'debates' like that is not how the left should proceed, as Melenchon and others have correctly sought they try to place any blame for the economic decline of France and any resultant social problems on those responsible. As for multiculturalism, I suggest you read the constitution of the 5th Republic and examine the policies of integration that have been followed since immigration began, which btw was long before WWII.

Why should I?

You should because you made a claim about the 'pre-decimal' (which I assume to mean Marxist) left without a perfunctory knowledge of their different positions on nationalism or the theoretical positions taken by Lenin and other thinkers in the movement.

And why was Thatcher made electable and such a swing to a right ideology possible? Because of the total balls made of the economy by pseudo socialists who handed Margaret Thatcher her constituency on a plate. Point proven I think.

Why, was the Labour Party responsible for high oil prices?

Not only that the entirely theoretical 'socialists' of Blair and Brown turned out to be quite fraudulent didn't they? Half the people one meets advocating socialism would be advocating pragmatism in the unlikely event they'e ever reach office and that pragmatism would be a prelude to turning into a management consultant.

Mr 'Clause 4' Blair a socialist?

What do socialists want? Numerous turns at the wheel while they fiddle around and adjust their theories to the correct pitch? Every time anything either remotely socialist gets anywhere near power it makes a pitch for the centre ground in order to be elected (Blair) or flails around lost in ideology that does not answer in a modern economy.

Blair or Labour post-Kinnock were nowhere remotely near being socialists, and there hasn't been an economically left wing government in Europe since the 80s. Capitalist economies go through phases, the Keynesian post-war boom cycle continued until the 1970s until it burst, and at the moment we are coming out the end of the neo-liberal/Thatcherite phase which began in roughly the 1970s and is ending at the moment. Concrete circumstances determine policy in a capitalist economy where the state's power to control the economy is limited at the best of times.

If it weren't for Briish socialists there wouldn't have been any Thatcher.

If my aunt had balls...

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

Ah yes- every tim ostensible socialists get so much as a sniff of power they default to their national 'version' of socialism and there's no mention of Messrs Lenin and Trotsky.

And time after time when any version of socialism however strong or weak fails to deliver a better more equitable society they were always 'doing it wrong'.

The same could be said of Hitler. If he hadn't chosen to go down the insane route of demonisation of certain groups and had stopped and consolidated at France there would probably be statues of him across Europe now.

The fact is he was a psychopath- other than the foul social policies of Hitler his is the only version of socialism that delivered two things- national pride and economic regeneration.

Please don't mistake my words as some sort of apologia for the horrors that came with him and his ideology.

They are not intended as such. It is an uncomfortable thought that 'national' socialism might work without the horrific victimisation of others and on an economic level. That is a very sobering realisation.

[Sam Lord]

It is an uncomfortable thought that 'national' socialism might work without the horrific victimisation of others and on an economic level. That is a very sobering realisation.

How would the economy be organised under this "national socialism" that might work? What class would hold power?

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

Don't ask me, Sam, I'm not advocating national socialism. A bit of nationalism would be nice if only in the sensible ability to jail those who threaten the existence of the state, or preferably shoot them but I recognise I'm less squeamish in this regard than most. The ancient Egyptians had this sorted three thousand years ago with their policy of fining those with responsibility for public money twice the amount for theft another citizen would get. So we are backwards in that those who abuse the state's resources while in public office don't even get half the consequences an ordinary citizen would receive if caught.

In a sense we are already surrounded by an International Socialism- with redistribution of income from the many to the corporate shareholder.

I'm reminded of what Tony Benn said when asked about New Labour in power. He said 'I didn't expect a lot of socialism. But a little would have been nice.'