New Little Red Book in France

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well i read Hessel as arguing for reason, vinteuil, but of a different, and less palatable, analysis than the current 'wise' orthodoxy; check out the Collegium, this is not a one off cry of passion but a veritable campaign .... and of course Le Monde will disparage him .... he is far from a revolutionary in my understanding of that term ... he is arguing for a reason based on social values - [and the criticism of this as 'emotional' is just so much 20thC guff based on an invalid faculty model of human thought] .... it is his rhetoric which is being objected to, but that is his point no? time to cry out, enough of this!

what the objections amount to is that we can not possibly deal with the condition of humanity [spurious reference to its inevitability and constancy throughout history] because we are too busy making money and protecting our wealth ..... i would urge you to take his case seriously, if we do not, then the deluge ... or maybe the kettle, but no nice cup of tea ...

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Weirdly, however, the alternative to growth sounds much more conservative than anything the Tories would dream of straightforwardly suggesting. It involves a revolution so much greater than taking to the street and proclaiming free higher education as "a fundamental human right", or boycotting Topshop until Philip Green pays more tax. It involves the adoption of serious, sober, studious, self-improving and circumscribed lives that are quiet and careful, disciplined and thrifty, packed with work, mostly unpaid, highly reliant on "simple pleasures" for satisfaction and self- fulfilment, and held together by a small but tremendously reliable and highly decentralised state.

It's what the Conservatives have in mind for those who are locked out of the next boom, and the funny thing is that the only really radical alternative is to accept the same medicine, but without bothering simultaneously to chase globalised growth and inter- national standing. In other words, voting Green. There was a brief vogue for discussion about the adoption of such Quaker-like existences just as the crash came, but people very quickly realised that they didn't actually fancy it all that much, really. Instead, the hope is still to have it all, for ever, and in this the only real difference between the mainstream left and the mainstream right is how the fantasy gets dressed up. Happy 2050.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/05/growth-cant-continue-for-ever

Ms Orr, who wrote the piece, seems eminently reasonable to me ....

[Simon]

OK then, yeah, let's have a revolution. Just in the west, of course, where we have the freedom to have one - we'll ignore the "dirty little third world dictatorships". (Like, er, China and Iran... ;) )

And then when we've had it, let's pop back in 10 years and see how the lot of the ordinary man in the street and his little family has been bettered by the slaughter and violence. You know, just like it was bettered in Russia after the Romanovs went. Or in China after Mao appeared. Or anywhere else that has had a revolution.

Grow up folks. It all sounds very liberal and righteous and decent and worthy and it's easy to blame the capitalist pigdogs for everything. I bleme them for some things myself. But silly posturings like this, however well-meaning, will do no good, nor will violence.

[french frank]

OK then, yeah, let's have a revolution.

You misunderstand. Terms like 'revolution' or (should I choose to use it) 'call to arms' aren't referring to a physical revolution, merely a change in which people organise their priorities. Changing the things that mean most to them and think about things which they have hitherto ignored. 'Slaughter and violence' have nothing to do with it.

[Serial_Apologist]

I may disagree with calum, Simon - but "at least" (pace calum) he recognises that the problems to be faced up to are systemic. Where one disagrees concerns "what is to be done" (pun unintended).

What, [I] would argue, sustains the problem(s) consists in one small overprivileged class having monopoly of control in exercising who, not just "in the end" but all the time, pays for them, and just how, while at the same time persuading the rest of us that they hold the inalienable right to preach and preach ad nauseam to that effect.

If, from the pov of holding (or believing they hold) a monopoly of information, if not wisdom, flowing from their privileged position, yields some degree/level of questioning among one small sector of the elite, then this is at least worthy of constructive critique; revolutions, in the sense of breakouts with unforseeable consequences resulting from dammed up anger and frustration, would never be wisely a chosen panacea, under more propitious circumstances which seldom if ever arise.

S-A

[sigolene euphemia]

A bit ago I checked into this thread for the first time and as I use Google Chrome - up came the question do you want this page translated from French into English. A revolution ?

I do want to respond to this little red book for the Father of the French Family I lived with as a teen, near Lyon had worked in the French Underground of WWII in Paris. I also had an intriguing discussion late last year about revolution physical violence and taking to the streets or can it happen in new ways which is change as ff says.

s.

[Serial_Apologist]

Hi Sigolene

In France, post-WW2, it took the figurehead of De Gaulle to safeguard the economic and political status quo in France. In Britain it took a "common enemy" to forge the passing sense of common identity which enabled the peaceful establishment of the welfare state.

Caspitalism imv has always had to wager between its self-proclaimed inalienable right, either to expand the province of its operations beyond the state boundaries that originally provided for and strengthened its basis, or to fall back on its original nationalist premisses as an ideological tool for redefining the common enemy in the most simplistic, easily communicable ideological terms. Nazism represented this scapegoating of capitalism's self-created problems in the crudest of terms, while spelling out regardless in its actions its expansionist aims; the pro/anti EU positions continue to reflect this in more muted form. It is easier, if like Murdoch you have control of the means of ideological dissemination, to persuade those brought up on national pride and achievement, that an enemy exists that is thwarting your best endeavours to make people believe they will only have secure, improving lives if they stop aasking awkward questions and just knuckle under. The enemy can be defined according to what part of the mess can easily be scapegoated - whether it be troublemakers, immigrants, foreigners, or good old human nature.

There is a common enemy - the threat to all humanity of an unsustainable future. Getting across what can be done about it is another matter.

S-A

[greenilex]

"Raisonner" is the key and even Albion can have a stab at it.

But I see every reason why the youth of Gaza should be indignant. Did you see the Observer article about their cyber-manifesto?

[sigolene euphemia]

Hi Sigolene

In France, post-WW2, ...
There is a common enemy - the threat to all humanity of an unsustainable future. Getting across what can be done about it is another matter.

S-A

S-A

Thank you for such an insightful post. I do read all of these threads I participate within, but often do not write a reflection for I hardly posses formidable information let alone knowledge to comment "sustain-ably" for the brilliance of those who gather here on FoR3.

s.

[Flosshilde]

Pierre Assouline in 'le Monde' dissents somewhat from the tidal support for Hessel:

A-t-on le droit de ne pas s’indigner avec Stéphane Hessel ?
"Etrange phénomène que celui d’Indignez vous ! (29 pages, 3 euros, Indigène éditions) .... « Créer, c’est résister. Résister, c’est créer »"

Perhaps we need a similar rule to the old BBc boards about extensive posts in foreign languages?

Or at least the poster could provide a translation.

[Simon]

I don't think we need such rules; it seems clear that most people on here managed to read it. It struck me to wonder where else could one post a piece like that - it's not the easiest French - and initiate a good discussion except on the R3 boards! But of course we haven't all got all the languages, so a translation of long chunks would perhaps be courteous, I agree, Flossie.

There have been some very interesting points made, I think.

[Flosshilde]

it seems clear that most people on here managed to read it. ... and initiate a good discussion

Well, perhaps, but it's rather self-selecting: if a person couldn't read it, they're unlikely to be able to join in the discussion.

Still, I'm pleased you agree about providing a translation.

[amateur51]

OK then, yeah, let's have a revolution. Just in the west, of course, where we have the freedom to have one - we'll ignore the "dirty little third world dictatorships". (Like, er, China and Iran... ;) )

And then when we've had it, let's pop back in 10 years and see how the lot of the ordinary man in the street and his little family has been bettered by the slaughter and violence. You know, just like it was bettered in Russia after the Romanovs went. Or in China after Mao appeared. Or anywhere else that has had a revolution.

Grow up folks. It all sounds very liberal and righteous and decent and worthy and it's easy to blame the capitalist pigdogs for everything. I bleme them for some things myself. But silly posturings like this, however well-meaning, will do no good, nor will violence.

Who was it who recently chided you about the need for you to brush up on your history Simon? S/he got the same old 'my great-grandmother knew the Duke of Devonshire' routine but it seems to be a fair suggestion on this recent evidence.

The suffragettes used slaughter and violence, Simon. The fags and trannies at The Stonewall Inn? The anti-apartheid movement? Montgomery? Gdansk?

'But silly posturings like this, however well-meaning, will do no good, nor will violence. ' - really?

[Simon]

Still, I'm pleased you agree about providing a translation.

Well, I'm not prepared to spend the time necessary to do the lot - but I'll happily do a paragraph on Saturday if we share it out between us!

I think the article is worth it - and I think the discussion in general is worth it. It's clearly important, and there's probably not much between most of us in terms of how we view ithe subject anyway. As S-A has said, it's the solution that's the hard bit!

[french frank]

One Syd Alexander takes Assouline to task in a reply almost as long [exaggeration!] as the original article.