|
Golden Dawn politicians get arrestedquote:Two more politicians from the far-right Golden Dawn party have been jailed on charges of playing a pivotal role in a criminal organisation. Nice to see them getting some of their deserved comeuppance 
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 09:28
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
Mans posted:Goethe42 i can't wait until your next adventure where you venture into a poor suburban area of France and talk about "hey i'm not racist but you should see these blacks!" Yes, how gauche. Everyone knows that that poverty leads to quiet wisdom and dignity. How dare he imply anything else. Hating on the poor is often based on reading the effects of poverty as some kind of essential quality the poor have (lack of moral fibre or whatever), and this is bullshit, but it does not mean that these negative qualities do not exist. It just means that they are a result of history and circumstance, not nature.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 09:46
|
|
|
goethe42 posted:There is no awareness that the way the most visible part of the Roma live may be due to the way they have been treated in the past. Raising awareness about this is the first step to an improvement of the attitude towards the Roma and an improvement of their situation. You seriously think that there's ignorance that the Roma have been persecuted for centuries in Hungary? Really? I've never met a European who didn't know that the Roma have always been harshed on. If nothing else, Europeans know they were rounded up and slaughtered by Hitler. Racists in the US know that black people have been persecuted too, y'know. It doesn't interrupt their racist flow one iota.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 12:09
|
|
|
That's very sneaky but it's not going to work. You're assuming one premise ahead of him already, which is that knowing about past suffering oder injustice laid against a group means you also attribute their disenfranchisement to that previous injustice
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
Mans posted:Without these entrepeneurs the race just falls apart. Imagine the white man without Bill Gates. Imagine the black man without Aliko Dangote. You don't know what you are talking about. I live in the Czech Republic and not even a decade back there was a huge "affair" because the public service TV employed a Roma newscaster. What a shocking upheaval! How can you choose a person like that for a prestigious position? People are completely unable to even imagine a minority in a position of success, there definitely need to be these high profile positive examples because otherwise poverty becomes a self fulfilling prophecy driven by majority's preconceptions. By the way, one of the most popular lovely TV shows in the country (imagine Eastenders, but infinitely cheaper) features - from what I gather - a couple of characters meant to serve as sort of a reminder of the human aspects of the Roma population. Even these sympathetic characters are criminals. Obdicut posted:You seriously think that there's ignorance that the Roma have been persecuted for centuries in Hungary? Really? I've never met a European who didn't know that the Roma have always been harshed on. If nothing else, Europeans know they were rounded up and slaughtered by Hitler. Perhaps even more importantly, the fact they have some knowledge of the history doesn't mean they invoke this knowledge at all when judging others. I'm fairly confident to say that most people don't give the slightest poo poo about history.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 13:04
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:That's very sneaky but it's not going to work. You're assuming one premise ahead of him already, which is that knowing about past suffering oder injustice laid against a group means you also attribute their disenfranchisement to that previous injustice Going back to an earlier point, you claimed that Marxism was some sort of curative for racism. There's nothing in actual Marxist philosophy--that of Marx-Engels--which is anti-racist, and his 'stage theory' of history lends itself easily to racist ideas. The Marxist view that all things stem from economic and class struggle, moreover, means that any examination of racism from an original Marxist lends dismisses the cultural attributes of racism and comes up with an incomplete view of racism as a function of capitalist oppression of workers; while racism is undoubtedly a force that divides the working class, this is an awkward reading of Marx since Marx doesn't tend to imbue capitalist structures with intentionality, but there is clear and obvious intention in many racist ideologues. Marx's idea of the lumpenproletariat also lends itself very easily to racism. While there obviously have been many Marxist philosophers and activists since Marx who have been able to use Marxism to combat racism, it's an effortful thing; the insistence of Marx on economic interpretations of culture is awkward when dealing with something like racism. steinrokkan posted:You don't know what you are talking about. That's my point. It's a willful ignorance, not an actual one. Just like American racists who know that blacks were enslaved, denied the right to vote, denied the right to an education and work, and pretend that those have no lasting effects, so do Europeans hold those same views about the Roma. It's a willful, intentional racism, not just caused by observation of what the Roma do now but a labored effort to ignore how they got there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
There is a stated intention in racist ideologues, but that is not the same as their function: the distinctions between races are arbitrary and fluid, but the functionally racism acts just as a damper on class consciousness. The social question is resolved by paying off one section of the working class with some of the surplus labour of the minority. The words written by racists here are worthless and irrelevant: they themselves are specific and contingent to the society around them, yet the net effect of racist ideology across societies is invariant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:That's my point. It's a willful ignorance, not an actual one. Just like American racists who know that blacks were enslaved, denied the right to vote, denied the right to an education and work, and pretend that those have no lasting effects, so do Europeans hold those same views about the Roma. It's a willful, intentional racism, not just caused by observation of what the Roma do now but a labored effort to ignore how they got there. My point is that it isn't willful because historical knowledge doesn't play a role in the cognitive processes responsible for their racism. It exists on a separate track and when you question it, they will make up some excuses or just scoff at you, but without an conscious effort on the part of the critic there is no natural bleed of historical facts and their windfall into one's racist attitudes. Of course, this isn't a general rule, but what I think is often the point of departure for dealing with a racist individual with little socialization into more a progressive setting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Golden Dawn politicians get arrested loving lol.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:My point is that it isn't willful because historical knowledge doesn't play a role in the cognitive processes responsible for their racism. It exists on a separate track and when you question it, they will make up some excuses or just scoff at you, but without an conscious effort on the part of the critic there is no natural bleed of historical facts and their windfall into one's racist attitudes. I don't know what you mean by 'separate track'. They know both things: that Roma have been historically persecuted to an incredible degree, and that Roma are currently at the lowest rung of society. They willfully avoid connecting the dots, even when confronted with the really obvious connections. rudatron posted:There is a stated intention in racist ideologues, but that is not the same as their function: the distinctions between races are arbitrary and fluid, but the functionally racism acts just as a damper on class consciousness. No, it doesn't just act as a damper on class consciousness, even if you think class consciousness is something that's actually real. Racism actually interferes with capitalism in a number of ways, and makes it more inefficient. It's only 'beneficial' to capitalism if you think that capitalism has some inherent drive to preserve itself, which is counter-Marxian, since Marx argued capitalism inevitably set up the conditions for its own overthrow and destruction. quote:The words written by racists here are worthless and irrelevant: they themselves are specific and contingent to the society around them, yet the net effect of racist ideology across societies is invariant. The effect of racist ideology is highly variable between societies. In many cases, like anti-semitism historically in Europe and the US and anti-Muslim sentiment in the US, it's entirely class-independent, and cannot be argued to serve class-divisive functions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I don't know what you mean by 'separate track'. They know both things: that Roma have been historically persecuted to an incredible degree, and that Roma are currently at the lowest rung of society. They willfully avoid connecting the dots, even when confronted with the really obvious connections. quote:No, it doesn't just act as a damper on class consciousness, even if you think class consciousness is something that's actually real. Racism actually interferes with capitalism in a number of ways, and makes it more inefficient. It's only 'beneficial' to capitalism if you think that capitalism has some inherent drive to preserve itself, which is counter-Marxian, since Marx argued capitalism inevitably set up the conditions for its own overthrow and destruction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:If they don't know how to connect dots or even that it's possible to connect dots, then it isn't willful. I really don't get this. Are you implying they're all mentally deficient? These are not difficult dots to connect. quote:According to Marxism, while capitalism is going to be destroyed by its contradictions, it does have a drive to self-preserve itself, and this drive is called the state. State which is called to moderate problems of the social system caused by the recklessness of individual capitalists, and in this capacity is legitimized to act in ways that would seem contradictory to a superficial understanding of capitalism - such as the redistributive strategy described by rudatron. Can you source this in Marx, please? I think you've got it slightly wrong: Marx argues that the state always acts to preserve the interests of the ruling class, but he doesn't argue it does it to preserve that economic system as far as I've ever seen, but instead just to further the interests of that class as that class understands its own interests. In Marixst theory, the capitalist class certainly does not understand that capitalism inevitably brings about the conditions of its own defeat, instead, the state functions to increase income disparity and the other factors that Marx identified as part of capitalist class interests. In addition, Marx had a parallel theory in his later years, that the bourgeoisie would and did prefer to wield power indirectly and so preferred to have 'aristocratic' elements in control of the actual state, since being in direct control made them too much of a target for the bourgeoisie. This is found most strongly in his writings on Napoleon. It does lend a little strength to your and rudatron's argument in that it implies some level of conscious strategy, but as usual Marx places most of the mechanism in purely economic terms; there's not enough money in being directly in control. Anyway, as I said, the examples of anti-semitism and anti-Muslims sentiment, which are independent of class, demonstrate pretty clearly that a simple analysis of racism as mainly functioning to divide classes is insufficient. Going back to those ol' original Fascists in Italy and Germany, their racial ideology was clearly not either expressed as a support for capitalism nor did it have any practical effect of supporting capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
A capitalist system is not as a whole a conscious thing with 'intention' or 'drive'. It is a system that will react to stimulus. The stimulus is the threat of labour unrest, the reaction is the exploitation of already existing divisions among labor as a basis of a power hierarchy. This is not an inefficiency, it's a necessary expense to maintain the power structures that further the class interests of capital. It's not a kind of cynical conspiracy-level game, of a secret cabal that 'created' racism or whatever, that's a gross misunderstanding. It's simply the easiest way to resolve the social question that doesn't infringe on capital's interests, or infringes on it the least.Obdicut posted:Anyway, as I said, the examples of anti-semitism and anti-Muslims sentiment, which are independent of class, demonstrate pretty clearly that a simple analysis of racism as mainly functioning to divide classes is insufficient. Going back to those ol' original Fascists in Italy and Germany, their racial ideology was clearly not either expressed as a support for capitalism nor did it have any practical effect of supporting capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
I would say Engels' Anti-Dühring and Origin of The Family are good sources about viewing the state as superior to the atomized capitalist class in its ability to anticipate and moderate conflict. As for the other thing - well, I think it's not necessary for one's behaviour to be connected with their intellectual background. I dunno, I have trouble formulating my thoughts on this matter into something coherent and comprehensive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Going back to an earlier point, you claimed that Marxism was some sort of curative for racism. There's nothing in actual Marxist philosophy--that of Marx-Engels--which is anti-racist, and his 'stage theory' of history lends itself easily to racist ideas. The Marxist view that all things stem from economic and class struggle, moreover, means that any examination of racism from an original Marxist lends dismisses the cultural attributes of racism and comes up with an incomplete view of racism as a function of capitalist oppression of workers; while racism is undoubtedly a force that divides the working class, this is an awkward reading of Marx since Marx doesn't tend to imbue capitalist structures with intentionality, but there is clear and obvious intention in many racist ideologues. Marx's idea of the lumpenproletariat also lends itself very easily to racism. While there obviously have been many Marxist philosophers and activists since Marx who have been able to use Marxism to combat racism, it's an effortful thing; the insistence of Marx on economic interpretations of culture is awkward when dealing with something like racism. When you're done making a fool of yourself you should apologize to steinrokkan and confront his point without moving the goalposts, as he and I previously indicated that you did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
rudatron posted:A capitalist system is not as a whole a conscious thing with 'intention' or 'drive'. It is a system that will react to stimulus. The stimulus is the threat of labour unrest, the reaction is the exploitation of already existing divisions among labor as a basis of a power hierarchy. This is not an inefficiency, it's a necessary expense to maintain the power structures that further the class interests of capital. It's not a kind of cynical conspiracy-level game, of a secret cabal that 'created' racism or whatever, that's a gross misunderstanding. It's simply the easiest way to resolve the social question that doesn't infringe on capital's interests, or infringes on it the least. I didn't call it either a conspiracy-level game or a secret cabal, nor did I claim that racism was 'created', so I'm not sure why you're swinging away at that. quote:It's simply the easiest way to resolve the social question that doesn't infringe on capital's interests, or infringes on it the least. To me, you're completely conflating things which maintain the power structures which further the class interests of capital, and things which prevent overthrow of that system. Marx argues that capitalism is going to create the conditions for its own destruction, and you seem to be arguing that, instead, capitalism reacts to labor unrest be exploiting division among labor in order to address that unrest. The easier, more Marxian explanation would be that capitalists exploit racial division among labor to make them compete with each other and depress the price of wages. Furthermore, since you're saying that these divisions already exist, you're just talking about how capitalism exploits existing racism (and, presumably, other bigotries), but nothing about how that bigotry comes to be or other ways other than some sort of stimulus response on the part of capitalism that somehow energizes racism. Basically, you've said capitalism takes advantage of racism to suppress class consciousness; this is arguably true, but it ignores the simpler explanation that capitalism exploits racism for economic benefit, and it also ignores that by acknowledging racism is exploited by, and not invented by, capitalism, there are obviously other forces that create and sustain racism other than capitalism. Furtthermore, as I keep saying, an examination of anti-semitism and anti-Muslim bigotry shows the insufficiency of an idea of racism as simply the best way to resolve the 'social question' in light of capitalist interests. steinrokkan posted:I would say Engels' Anti-Dühring and Origin of The Family are good sources about viewing the state as superior to the atomized capitalist class in its ability to anticipate and moderate conflict. I haven't read this, so I completely accept there may be something in there that speaks strongly to this. I'll check it out. However, racism is and was strongly prevalent in places with very weak state control as well as places with very strong state control, and likewise racism has been much less prevalent in places with strong and weak state control; there doesn't appear to be a direct connection between either the level of capitalism in a society and the racism in it, or the strength of the state and the racism of that society. The idea that racism is exploited by various interests, which Rudatron stated, is accurate, but that automatically implies a previous existence. quote:As for the other thing - well, I think it's not necessary for one's behaviour to be connected with their intellectual background. I dunno, I have trouble formulating my thoughts on this matter into something coherent and comprehensive. I think it's entirely possible we're just missing each other on language and semantics, then. What I'm saying in terms of 'willful' is not that people actually connect the dots and then discard the idea, but that the 'just world' racist ideology works backwards historically too; that they acknowledge the previous oppression but, in some way, imply or believe that previous oppression was also deserved or inevitable or a historical accident; basically, it's a belief that that cultural group has to change in some fundamental way in order to not be (rightfully) oppressed and ostracized, that it's not society's fault, it's theirs. SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:When you're done making a fool of yourself you should apologize to steinrokkan and confront his point without moving the goalposts, as he and I previously indicated that you did. What goalpost was moved, please? The idea that past oppression leads to present disenfranchisement is exactly the point I'm talking about these people willfully not connecting the dots on, so I don't see how you can think it's a shift of a goalpost. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Jan 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Post ain't edit, boyo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
You didn't think Marxism could be used to approach/used as a justification against racism, and you based it on the lack of 'intentionality' in Marxist thought, which you felt racist ideology had. Political economy is obviously not a comprehensive guide to all human behaviour ever, however intention is not something that is necessary to study systemic racism as a social phenomena because their rhetoric/intentions are irrelevant to their mechanical function in a political-economic system. The 'genesis' of race and racism is irrelevant, racism as it function in 2014 is still an anti-Marxist force. My real dispute with you here is your claim that 'intentions' are a cause and not an effect, and that to meaningfully study something like this you must place these intentions as a premise and derive the results form them. rudatron fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Jan 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You didn't think Marxism could be used to approach/used as a justification against racism, and you based it on the lack of 'intentionality' in Marxist thought, which you felt racist ideology had. As in many cases, it depends what you mean by 'Marxism', since I talked about a lot of Marxist philosophers and activists who have added to Marxism to make anti-racist arguments. I based my argument partially on the lack of 'intentionality' in Marxist analysis of capitalism, since Marx very much believed capitalism was sowing the seeds for its own downfall, literally creating the conditions for its overthrow. I do, indeed, think that many and various racist ideologies have a direct intention that's not present in capitalism. Capitalists, under Marxist though, don't want to keep people working for slave wages because they hate them or think they suck, capitalists do this as an inevitable economic result of the structure of capitalism. Racist ideologues, on the other hand, want racial stratification for its own sake, there's an animus and hatred there that isn't at all present in Marxist ideas of class struggle. I also cited a number of Marxist theories, like that of the lumpenproleteariat and the stage-theory of history, which can be used as support for racism. quote:Political economy is obviously not a comprehensive guide to all human behavior ever, however intention is not something that is necessary to study systemic racism as a social phenomena because their rhetoric/intentions are irrelevant to their mechanical function in a political-economic system. I don't think that their rhetoric or intentions are irrelevant, because understanding that some people will cripple their own economic interests--capitalists as well as proletariat--in the name of racial ideology is important to analyze that political-economic system. quote:The 'genesis' of race and racism is irrelevant, racism as it function in 2014 is still demonstrably an anti-Marxist force. Racism as it functions in 2014 is not a coherent or monolithic entity, there's many different kids of it and lumping it all together is oversimplifying to a massive degree. As I keep saying, for example, the racism that's present against Muslims (yes, yes, Muslim isn't a race, but neither is anything else) in US society functions very differently, has very different causes, and has very different solutions than racism against blacks in US society. I would tentatively agree that most forms of racism in 2014 are anti-Marxist (depending on what form of Marxism you're talking about) but I don't think that anti-Marxist attributes of racism are the main reasons for its continuance or power; I think the reasons racism remains powerful and influential are directly related to the geneses of racism and the involvement of racist ideologues for whom anti-Marxist thought is a sideline to their main racist ideology. quote:My real dispute with you here is your claim that 'intentions' are a cause and not an effect, and that to meaningfully study something like this you must place these intentions as a premise and derive the results form them. I don't really know what you mean by this. I'm not making any argument about placing intentions as a premise, at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I would say Engels' Anti-Dühring and Origin of The Family are good sources about viewing the state as superior to the atomized capitalist class in its ability to anticipate and moderate conflict. There are things people know, but they do not think about. They learn facts, but do not cross-check and analyze. If something exists as an ever-present background noise, it is unlikely to be commented on and analyzed. It is not hatred, it is not contempt, it is simply the norm. An unexamined life is not worth living. But not every person can examine every facet of their life. If you can smack someone with a two by four between their metaphoric eyes long enough for them to cross-check facts, often they may engage thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Antwan3K posted:Australians aren't allochtoon Joke's on them. Australians are the last people you want in your country. Take it from me, I'm Australian.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 09:52
|
|
Warcabbit posted:There are things people know, but they do not think about. They learn facts, but do not cross-check and analyze. If something exists as an ever-present background noise, it is unlikely to be commented on and analyzed. It is not hatred, it is not contempt, it is simply the norm. Knowledge is disquieting as well. Honestly, with the state of the world as it is, it's hard to see how full knowledge of it would inspire anything other than anxiety, depression or anger.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Historical anarchists have very little to do with anything. This is wrong on so many levels that I don't really know where to start. What do you think happened in Paris 1968, the Spanish Civil War and anarchist Ukraine?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Tias posted:This is wrong on so many levels that I don't really know where to start. What do you think happened in Paris 1968, the Spanish Civil War and anarchist Ukraine? Small pockets of anarchist control were systematically and inevitably crushed by powerful state forces.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWRVXIAzvMA http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/is-new-revolution-quietly-brewing-in.html quote:Members of the Jewish Defense League (LDJ) show up to scream insults at Dieudo and his supporters who, in turn, shout all types of abuse at the LDJ members and wave pineapples at them while sining "Shoananas". The cops keep the two sides apart as best they can. Then the supporters of Dieudo begin to chant "liberte d'expression" (freedom of speech) to which the LDJ members reply "am Israel hai" ("Israel is alive" in Hebrew) and begin to sing the Israeli national anthem. At this point the supporters being to sing the French "La Marseillaise" from the top of their lungs totally drowning out the completely overwhelmed LDJ activists. Now take a close look at the faces singing "La Marseillaise" - do you see that a lot of the people singing it are clearly Brown and Black? These are precisely the type young people taken mostly, but not only, from the notorious 'banlieues'. These could be the same people who in 2001 and 2002 booed the French national anthem during soccer matches (a big scandal at the time). Crazy stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:Crazy stuff. quote:Trying to convince people by regular information campaigns has proven useless too. If anything the double facts that the 9/11 Truth movement has proven far beyond reasonable doubt that the Twin Towers and WTC7 have been brought down by controlled demolition AND the fact that his has had exactly zero impact on the political process in the USA proves that most people have been either zombified beyond rescue or have given up hope in complete disgust and despair.  The rest of it sounds interesting though, would love to hear more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:Crazy stuff. Could you add a little context for why you posted this article and what you think about it? Because it does seem pretty crazy and I don't know what to make of it. I have no idea who either Soral or Dieudonne is and I'm not sure whether being associated with whoever blogged this article reflects favorably on them. A Buttery Pastry already pointed out that it has a bit of 9/11 Trutherism in it, but it also goes on to mention the CIA and French plutocrats orchestrating May 68, points to the Rotschilds being behind mass immigration as well as the French Socialists acting as the puppet masters of Front Nationale. Crazy stuff seems a pretty accurate description.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWRVXIAzvMA Dieudonné have been showing up in the news up north as well. "Accused of antisemitism" can mean anything from satire on Israels settler policy to actual antisemitic remarks. This guy is apparently a friend of Le Pen though, which would indicate the latter? Still, it's interesting that Dieudonné is black and a lot of his fans seem to be as well. I thought Front National was your standard "out with the foreigners/muslims" type of party. Does antisemitism trump all that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
itsnice2bnice posted:A Buttery Pastry already pointed out that it has a bit of 9/11 Trutherism in it, but it also goes on to mention the CIA and French plutocrats orchestrating May 68, points to the Rotschilds being behind mass immigration as well as the French Socialists acting as the puppet masters of Front Nationale. Crazy stuff seems a pretty accurate description.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Captain Scandinaiva posted:Dieudonné have been showing up in the news up north as well. "Accused of antisemitism" can mean anything from satire on Israels settler policy to actual antisemitic remarks. This guy is apparently a friend of Le Pen though, which would indicate the latter? The Front National is a very odd beast, and there are so many black people in France who are such an integral part of French society that the more traditional European "gently caress the blacks" becomes inefficient outside of really isolated rural communities; even in the FN's strongholds in the South, most people will generally have a black friend or two and deal with black people on a fairly regular basis; French nationalism has been fairly assimilationist for a long time, and even fascists work with what they're given. So rather than hating on them for being black, they have to hate on them for being unintegrated, not-French, scary muslims, whatever. Old man Le Pen was also a well known anti-semite. France is a really strange country politically - I don't know any other country that has an arrangement like the Cordon Sanitaire, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Long story short, Dieudonné is a negationnist anti-semite. He's anti-sionist too : opposing israeli expansion, but also paranoid about global jewish conspiracy. His shows have always been surrounded with controversy either due to their content, or to things he said in interviews. It's gotten to the point where he's been banned from performing across most of France, Switzerland and Belgium. The lastest shitstorm to come from this has been unfolding these last few weeks : he wanted to perform in Perpignan, but was prevented, first by mayoral, then by national decree from doing so. This leads to the aforementionned video.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Tias posted:This is wrong on so many levels that I don't really know where to start. What do you think happened in Paris 1968, the Spanish Civil War and anarchist Ukraine? Brutal crushing, brutal crushing, and brutal crushing. Nothing world-changing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:The Front National is a very odd beast, and there are so many black people in France who are such an integral part of French society that the more traditional European "gently caress the blacks" becomes inefficient outside of really isolated rural communities; even in the FN's strongholds in the South, most people will generally have a black friend or two and deal with black people on a fairly regular basis; French nationalism has been fairly assimilationist for a long time, and even fascists work with what they're given. So rather than hating on them for being black, they have to hate on them for being unintegrated, not-French, scary muslims, whatever. Belgium had this for the longest time to exclude Filip de Winter and his party Vlaams Blok. Also there was a brief period of time in which Geert Wilders and his PVV were excluded by such a Cordon Sanitaire. Although of course both of these have now ended and the only one that remains is the French one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:The Front National is a very odd beast, and there are so many black people in France who are such an integral part of French society that the more traditional European "gently caress the blacks" becomes inefficient outside of really isolated rural communities; even in the FN's strongholds in the South, most people will generally have a black friend or two and deal with black people on a fairly regular basis; French nationalism has been fairly assimilationist for a long time, and even fascists work with what they're given. So rather than hating on them for being black, they have to hate on them for being unintegrated, not-French, scary muslims, whatever. Actually, there are a lot of cordon sanitaires (or whatever the plural of cordon sanitaire is): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Actually, there are a lot of cordon sanitaires (or whatever the plural of cordon sanitaire is): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Brutal crushing, brutal crushing, and brutal crushing. Nothing world-changing. No, I'm sure living in full communism with increased economic growth, living standards and almost perfect political liberty didn't seem world-changing to those fortunate enough to be a part of it, broseph  You can repeat the "LOL if it's good, why did stalinists crush it" all day, it doesn't really make authoritarian "communism" any more of a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
Tias posted:No, I'm sure living in full communism with increased economic growth, living standards and almost perfect political liberty didn't seem world-changing to those fortunate enough to be a part of it, broseph That's the key, seemed world changing. But it wasn't actually changing the world. though it's really funny to claim Paris 1968 was full communism with increased economic growth because jesus christ. I didn't say it wasn't good while it was happening, I said they didn't end up changing anything. These are different concepts, but I know you're both using English as a second language and imbued with the hopeless romanticism (in the movement sense) of typical anarchists so it may be hard for you to understand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
You'd think someone who supports an ideology whose peak consists of killing themselves while making homemade bombs, occasional political assassination that results in brutal crushing of the left and general disorganized riots that again, just erode the left, would have a bit more common sense than to attack the big bad communists for daring to do something other than utopic dreaming. Paris 68 did nothing to stop the social and economic problems of France, the Spanish anarchists who didn't put their ideology aside to fight for the Republic were worthless dissidents who actively sabotaged the Republican cause and Makno led a warring band whose looting and pillaging you ignore because their banner was black. I guess you can also masturbate about the power of anarchism in Greece due to all the disorganized mass protests but seeing how it did gently caress all to stop austerity i'd shut up and think why my worthless ideology hasn't done gently caress all for the good of mankind other than feelgood "local politician gets shot, mass persecution of worker organizations is legitimized" or "molotov thrown at police results in kickass gif to post on the internet" stories from time to time. Communists may have done tons of fuckups when they reached power throughout the world but that's because big boy politics are hard you can't even molotov or Ocupy your way into an utopian paradise!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
I'm sorry but anarchism in civil war era Russia was hardly better than warlordism in civil war era China. You can project heroic images over the period, but ultimately it was just a temporary product of a larger political flux.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
E: ^^^^ Inclined to agree, but anarchists were a driving force in the revolution, and if nothing else I hope we can agree that soviet russia was world-changing.. Install Windows posted:That's the key, seemed world changing. But it wasn't actually changing the world. though it's really funny to claim Paris 1968 was full communism with increased economic growth because jesus christ. Anarchists have been pivotal to the workers movement in nearly every country, and directly responsible for the increases in living wages, rent decreases and, oh hey, also a driving force in major socialist revolutions such as the Russian one! You really don't know what you're talking about. Also, Mans, you still don't know poo poo. There's a great difference between insurrectionist anarchism (bomb-throwing, assassination anarchism) and mass anarchism, which is what anarchism is today and has been for most of its history.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 15:29
|
|