Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

French Presidential elections

chilango said:
...the next question that springs to my mind is that if (again a big "if") people can (and should) vote for "whoever" to stop Le Pen - because it is that important - then should also campaign for, and build the vote (electoral machinery etc.) for this "whoever", in order to give them the best chance of beating Le Pen. It would seem logical to do so, but becomes somewhat different politically to individually "holding one's nose" and casting a ballot in secret.

There sure aren't any easy answers.
Click to expand...
There's no need if the 'holding the nose' approach works. But the answer is absolutely no, and in any case, the French system doesn't work like that. Le Pen isn't in the second round yet.
 
chilango said:
"Absolutely no"? Why?
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this has been asked and answered already on this thread. A second round of, for instance, Fillon vs le Pen already represents a defeat for the left. At that point, you hold your nose to keep out le Pen. At no point need that entail saying anything but bad things about Fillon.

I know people are stressing differences, but this is exactly what happened in 2002, and le Pen snr was annihilated in the second round. That wasn't done through singing Chirac's praises.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Sorry, but this has been asked and answered already on this thread. A second round of, for instance, Fillon vs le Pen already represents a defeat for the left. At that point, you hold your nose to keep out le Pen. At no point need that entail saying anything but bad things about Fillon.
Click to expand...

...what if that contributed to Fillon's defeat/Le Pen's victory?

If it is so important that Le Pen is beaten at the ballot box (about which I'm open minded) then surely you do everything you can to ensure this defeat?
 
chilango said:
...what if that contributed to Fillon's defeat/Le Pen's victory?

If it is so important that Le Pen is beaten at the ballot box (about which I'm open minded) then surely you do everything you can to ensure this defeat?
Click to expand...
There are a lot of what ifs in your recent posts on this. I'd contend very strongly that doing anything other than vigorously opposing Fillon and everything he stands for is to allow space for the likes of le pen to do that challenging. But to repeat once again, once the defeat that a second round of Fillon vs le pen represents has happened, then the priorities within that narrow window temporarily change, although at no point does that have to include any praise of Fillon at all.

tbh millions and millions of French people understood this in 2002.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
There are a lot of what ifs in your recent posts on this. I'd contend very strongly that doing anything other than vigorously opposing Fillon and everything he stands for is to allow space for the likes of le pen to do that challenging. But to repeat once again, once the defeat that a second round of Fillon vs le pen represents has happened, then the priorities within that narrow window temporarily change, although at no point does that have to include any praise of Fillon at all.

tbh millions and millions of French people understood this in 2002.
Click to expand...

Of course there are a lot of "what ifs". I don't know what will happen. I don't know how best to respond to the brand new challenges being thrown up every day. Thinks big things through based upon past experience throws up lots of "what ifs". As it should. 2002 was a long time ago. As are the experiences (the BNP etc) I'm drawing from.
 
ska invita said:
The situation is/would be utter shit...
however....its the FN....we just had someone yesterday open fire in a mosque inspired by Le Pen's fine words
Click to expand...
Despite her not being in power and certainly not in that country meanwhile the more likely trigger for the actual act itself (not denying he got political because of her) was the election of Trump who is closer to Fillon than Le Pen in terms of power and influence
 
littlebabyjesus said:
There are a lot of what ifs in your recent posts on this. I'd contend very strongly that doing anything other than vigorously opposing Fillon and everything he stands for is to allow space for the likes of le pen to do that challenging. But to repeat once again, once the defeat that a second round of Fillon vs le pen represents has happened, then the priorities within that narrow window temporarily change, although at no point does that have to include any praise of Fillon at all.

tbh millions and millions of French people understood this in 2002.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out by many - 2002 is not 2017 and Chirac did not represent the same setback for the working class. Things have now moved on.
 
Dom Traynor said:
Despite her not being in power and certainly not in that country meanwhile the more likely trigger for the actual act itself (not denying he got political because of her) was the election of Trump who is closer to Fillon than Le Pen in terms of power and influence
Click to expand...
She gave a talk in Quebec which he went to, supposedly (is what i read on facebook)
 
ska invita said:
you make it sound like le pen is only half as bad as the conservative.... It really under plays the nature of FN... They're both racist isn't enough
Click to expand...
I got bored halfway through writing that shouldn't really have to list why she's bad - I would say she is as bad as Fillon but less dangerous at the moment.
 
chilango said:
...what if that contributed to Fillon's defeat/Le Pen's victory?

If it is so important that Le Pen is beaten at the ballot box (about which I'm open minded) then surely you do everything you can to ensure this defeat?
Click to expand...
Precisely, the logic of LBJ and Ska position is that they should be arguing for a vote for Macron in the 1st round.

And this is why attacking non-voters is such a divisive and stupid idea. First all the people who voted for the FN (even the soft vote) is cast out, then it's the non-voters, then it's the voters of minor parties. This isn't theoretical it's been seen time and time again, it happened with the Clinton campaign, Green's voters let Trump win. It's happened here.
 
Last edited:
redsquirrel said:
And since then the FN has got stronger. So how in any real sense was fascism stopped?
Click to expand...
The FN out of governmental power are weaker than they would be in it. Their ability to poison society was lessened.

Why has support for the FN grown? That is a wider question, the answer of which mirrors the New Labour experience.
But the inference in your post - and youve said this explicitly before - that supporting anyone but FN is a factor in the FN getting stronger, just isnt proven.

BTW Ive gone and read through as many relevant IWCA back catalogue of articles as possible, and good though they are, I couldn't find one making the specific argument you claim...if its there, please post it as Id like to read it.
redsquirrel said:
And this is why attacking non-voters is such a divisive and stupid idea. First all the people who voted for the FN (even the soft vote) is cast out, then it's the non-voters, then it's the voters of minor parties. This isn't theoretical it's been seen time and time again, it happened with the Clinton campaign, Green's voters let Trump win. It's happened here.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't "attack" non-voters, no-one is saying that on this thread...the case of stopping the greater evil is a simple one and is worth making to anyone willing to hear it.

And I couldn't disagree more strongly with Dom's "[Le Pen] is as bad as Fillon but less dangerous" - she's worse than him and she's more dangerous. I think it should be clear why thats the case, but it seems it isnt.

The example you link to of the Greens standing and taking seats from the BNP doesnt hold up as relevant - its a totally different situation - BNP didnt stand much of a chance in that safe Labour seat, for a start. If memory serves me right, the BNP got a kicking in that election, despite of, or maybe because of extensive anti-fascist "finger wagging".
 
ska invita said:
The FN out of governmental power are weaker than they would be in it. Their ability to poison society was lessened.

Why has support for the FN grown? That is a wider question, the answer of which mirrors the New Labour experience.
But the inference in your post - and youve said this explicitly before - that supporting anyone but FN is a factor in the FN getting stronger, just isnt proven.

BTW Ive gone and read through as many relevant IWCA back catalogue of articles as possible, and good though they are, I couldn't find one making the specific argument you claim...if its there, please post it as Id like to read it.
Click to expand...
We'll it's an unprovable isn't it, we can't know what would have happened if 'vote to keep out the BNP' hadn't been used. But looking at the progress the far right have made, often in seats where liberal anti-fascism was deployed, the evidence is certainly against it. And you've read IWCA articles but don't see their criticism of HnH/Searchlight state/liberal anti-racism? Then I think you should probably re-read them. I'm at work ATM but I'll try to dig some out this evening.


ska invita said:
I wouldn't "attack" non-voters, no-one is saying that on this thread...the case of stopping the greater evil is a simple one and is worth making to anyone willing to hear it.
Click to expand...
Yes they are. You've said that people you think that arguing voting X to stop Y are on the slippery slope to apologism for fascism FFS! Old Spark said DT's mindset is the same as mass-murdering terrorist groups. In what possible ways are those not attacks?

ska invita said:
The example you link to of the Greens standing and taking seats from the BNP doesnt hold up as relevant - its a totally different situation - BNP didnt stand much of a chance in that safe Labour seat, for a start. If memory serves me right, the BNP got a kicking in that election, despite of, or maybe because of extensive anti-fascist "finger wagging".
Click to expand...
And yet (Labour) people were arguing that the Greens we're letting the BNP in. Just as Clinton supporters accused those who voted for Stein of being Trump supporters by proxy. It's where you're logic leads, if not voting is wrong then so is voting for a third party candidate.
 
No, i havent said that - ive gone back to to check that post of mine, it said these things jar:
  • -encouraging people to vote against the far-right is dismissed emotively as "finger-wagging" {redsquirrel}
  • -people telling other people the importance of keeping out the far-right is suggested as actually just encouraging them to vote for the far right, as if adult voters are petulant five-year olds who will do the opposite, and vote for a racist/fascist party just to get back at those who encourage them not too {redsquirrel}
  • -its not so bad if Le Pen gets in over a rampant conservative as she would be "a very weak leader" by comparison {Dom Traynor}
  • -"Marine le pen isn't as badly afflicted by the extreme fascist and even personal ugliness" {Casually Red} - to clarify, to me this is a matter of presentation, and not substance. They are equally ugly and extreme for all practical purposes.
All very different from "anyone who argues against 'vote X to stop [fascism]' are on the slippery slope to apologism for fascism"

Im tired now...starting to go in circles
----------------------------------------------

From the Philippot feature I found this bit interesting:

“While we’re waiting for our extreme-right colleague, let me just say I’m so happy that this region isn’t run by the extreme right,” smiled the Socialist party deputy Pernelle Richardot. The Front National councillors, furious to be called “extreme-right,” erupted in rage and began angrily banging on their desks and shouting in protest.

Four hours later, fresh off the high-speed train from Paris, Philippot took his seat, as if nothing had been amiss. Within minutes, a councillor for the Républicains called the Front National “extreme right” once again. Philippot narrowed his eyes and leaned into his microphone: “I demand that the session be suspended so the elected member can take time to reflect on the seriousness of what he has just said.” Philippot stood up and stormed out, with his 45 councillors following in single file. “Ooh, he’s angry,” shouted a grinning councillor from the Socialist benches, rubbing his hands gleefully.

After nightfall, when the assembly session seemed like it would never end, a Front National councillor made a provocative suggestion – that the names of all people listed on the intelligence services’ confidential “S-files” of individuals believed to have been radicalised should be flagged to high schools who could check if any were on their staff.

“In a certain period of our history, we put yellow stars on people. You’re not far from that with your S files!” shouted a member of the Républicains. Metz, on the frontline of first and second world wars, is extremely sensitive to any reference to the Nazi occupation. Hearing his party likened to the Nazis, Philippot got up, and stormed out of the chamber, once again followed dutifully by his councillors.

“I do it systematically,” he explained in the corridor. “Each time they call us extreme right, I walk out. It’s insulting to us, and even more so to our voters.”
----------------------------------------------------------
Sly fuckers
 
hot air baboon said:
much as ska said ! I was thinking of the ( iirc ) Baader Meinhof tactic of trying to provoke the german state to go full nazi & so drive the masses into rising up- they did have their fans at the time...
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer my question. I asked how it is working out in your opinion for the USA right now?
 
ska invita said:
No, i havent said that - ive gone back to to check that post of mine, it said these things jar:
Click to expand...

No you said
ska invita said:
I understand the key problem here, but im hearing what sounds like apologism going on that jars with me:

  • -encouraging people to vote against the far-right is dismissed emotively as "finger-wagging" {redsquirrel}
  • -people telling other people the importance of keeping out the far-right is suggested as actually just encouraging them to vote for the far right, as if adult voters are petulant five-year olds who will do the opposite, and vote for a racist/fascist party just to get back at those who encourage them not too {redsquirrel}
  • -its not so bad if Le Pen gets in over a rampant conservative as she would be "a very weak leader" by comparison {Dom Traynor}
Click to expand...
Which clearly indicates that you consider the positions you've (wrongly) assigned to myself and DT as 'like apologism'. Then when I criticised this you came out with

ska invita said:
Fair point - I didnt mean to out and out say you are an apologist, more make the point there's a very steep and slippery slope on this, and to me those arguments set that slope alarm bell ringing.
Click to expand...
(my emphasis in both quotes).
 
Last edited:
Ive already stepped away from inferring you are an apologist once, if you want to say it again, i dont think you are an apologist and i apologise if it came across that way - though it stands true with casually red who inspired me using the word and IS a serial apologist - but yes all the above jar with me - i think ive made my position pretty clear as to why
 
ska invita said:
Ive already stepped away from inferring you are an apologist once, if you want to say it again, i dont think you are an apologist and i apologise if it came across that way - though it stands true with casually red who inspired me using the word and IS a serial apologist - but yes all the above jar with me - i think ive made my position pretty clear as to why
Click to expand...
Thank you. (and I agree largely agree with you about CR)

ska invita said:
BTW Ive gone and read through as many relevant IWCA back catalogue of articles as possible, and good though they are, I couldn't find one making the specific argument you claim...if its there, please post it as Id like to read it.
Click to expand...

This piece criticises liberal anti-fascism such as that of HnH/Searchlight etc, as does this piece which argues
Rather than try and take on the BNP in a political way, the proffered counter-strategy has deliberately been restricted to one of technical opposition only: bans, boycotts, censorship, no platform, smears and innuendo.

Of course, to pursue a strategy of winning-over rather than side-lining the alienated working class voter would mean addressing ticklish subjects such as immigration and its impact on jobs, services and housing, and ditching the conservative anti-fascist strategy pursued by Searchlight/The Mirror/Unite Against Facism (UAF) which is committed to stopping the BNP at almost any cost outside of upsetting the political equilibrium. UAF, for instance, merely called for ‘a vote for the mainstream parties’. Their conclusion? Vote right wing by all means but not too right wing! This is not anti-fascism, it is anti-extremism. (It should be noted in passing that the tactics pioneered by Searchlight for use against the BNP have also been used by the favoured ‘mainstream parties’ against the ‘extremist IWCA’. Once, a particularly reckless libel cost Labour a cool £15,000 plus a hefty chunk for legal costs).
Click to expand...
And then there's this piece (actually by the AFA rather than the IWCA, but many ways the starting gun)
As the activities of the ANL on the Isle of Dogs demonstrated (despite blanket canvassing the BNP vote actually rose by 30%), an anti-fascist message on its own would find little favour with working class people, even those repelled by the BNP, if they suspected that it was simply a spoiling tactic, carried out by allies of the local Labour establishment in an effort to maintain the status quo.
Click to expand...

.... And fascism begat anti-fascism. In straightforward language, it is the politics of the Labour Party that has created the BNP. So by acting as campaign managers for Labour, the ANL are are prostituting anti-fascism, and instead of being identified with a radical, pro-working class position, anti-fascism is seen to be defending the status quo, thereby practically forcing people who want change to vote BNP, out of sheer desperation. They are literally driving people into the arms of the fascists.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ska invita said:
Ive already stepped away from inferring you are an apologist once, if you want to say it again, i dont think you are an apologist and i apologise if it came across that way - though it stands true with casually red who inspired me using the word and IS a serial apologist - but yes all the above jar with me - i think ive made my position pretty clear as to why
Click to expand...

Fuck off you, you were chucking it about at everyone repeatedly. Over and over again . You've been rightly called on it , been shamed, and now you think you can settle for letting your shit stick on me . you're a snide bullshitter . I've said absolutely no different from anyone else . This is the very same snide bullshit argument except youve decided insulting others with it reflects badly on you.

Snide weasel.
 
redsquirrel said:
Thank you. (and I agree largely agree with you about CR)



This piece criticises liberal anti-fascism such as that of HnH/Searchlight etc, as does this piece which argues
And then there's this piece (actually by the AFA rather than the IWCA, but many ways the starting gun)
Click to expand...


This is exactly what I've been saying throughout the thread. The very same argument . Absolutely no different . Wanker boy says this is fascist apologism .
 
Rutita1 said:
That doesn't answer my question. I asked how it is working out in your opinion for the USA right now?
Click to expand...

I doubt "it" had any effect in the US - their revolutionary groups were all bullet riddled corpses or inmates by 1975 or thereabouts weren't they - Action Directe in France were going well into the 80's & I'n guessing French society provides much more of an ecosystem that can nurture strands of opinion like this than the US - the Green voters in the Blue Wall states may want to ponder their decision though

rather than naivity about the nature of say Trump its seems the populist voter behaviour is more akin to children who want to get back at their parents after a row by hiding in the attic & scaring the **** out of them by ignoring all their increasingly frantic calls - Michael Moore expressed it brilliantly in that speech before the election - in terms of it working out opinion seems to be divided on whether the Democrats can purge themsleves of the corporate/Clinton faction & associated ideology & become something better or mutate into the new vehicle for the neo-cons.... like the french revolution its too early to tell as a man once said
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Mexico Presidential Elections 2/6/24
Replies
7
Views
561
planetgeli
P
A380
And now a French General election too (2024)
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
277
Views
12K
yield
Y
O
European parliament elections
2 3
Replies
71
Views
3K
Hotel Chocolate
H
singsongfun
What chance does Trump have of winning the 2024 Presidential Election?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
216
Views
12K
Lucky 888
L
tim
New Caledonia and the resistance against French settler colonists.
Replies
5
Views
524
Wkdloz
Wkdloz
Back
Top Bottom