In Sicko, Moore attributes the comfortable French lifestyle to the notion that

[Jackpine Radical]

the government is afraid of the people (as opposed to the American pattern, which is the reverse). My question is, Why didn't the French succumb to the manipulations, machinations and outright coercion of the international cabal of wealthy greedheads? How did they avoid the economic and emotional enslavement that has gripped the American public?

If we can figure out what they did right, maybe we can replicate their success.

[rfranklin]

1. Because they went through centuries of monarchy...

and weren't raised on the foolish notion that rich people (Republicans) are better for them than socialists (Dems).

[Jackpine Radical]

9. But Americans went through centuries of monarchy too.

And there has in the past been a fair-sized streak of egalitarianism in America, as witness the labor movement.

[WinkyDink]

30. Not really. Puritans arrived in 1620; the Revolution was in 1775.

No monarch was ever on our soil.

[Jackpine Radical]

35. well, we were governed by representatives of the Crown--

often quite repressive ones.

[immoderate]

2. The French appreciate the life of the mind.

The attitude of Americans is anti-intellectual. As my friend's daughter said to me when I attempted to tutor her in algebra, "Don't teach it to me, just tell me how to get the answer."

--IMM

[KAT119]

29. Polls re the most informed citizenry always put France #1....

[WinkyDink]

31. And the arts. And everything sophisticated. Well, Jerry Lewis excepted!

[immoderate]

77. French culture is the model for all enlightenment cultures...

And who can figure Jerry Lewis? They are the French. Alors! :shrug:

--IMM

[Gregorian]

3. Here is a possible hint.

I apologize for not having more specifics. But this was what I saw on a documentary of the history of the Tour de France.

The French do not fall in love with a winner. They fall in love with charisma. They've had cyclists who were five time Tour winners who never got the admiration they deserved. But the French were enthused with other cyclists who were of a personality that they loved.

They are not like us. They don't just go for the winner. And I think it says something about the sophistication of the French. There is more to life than a bottom dollar. That is the conclusion I draw.

The French are weird. The Citroen. This may also be a reflection of what I'm mentioning. They are unique. They are thinkers. When I say weird, I mean it with admiration. I'm also weird. It's what makes me a good design engineer. I'm proud of it. There is nothing weird about Americans. There is nothing more pathetic and bland than standing in line at McDonald's. I know I'm drawing all kinds of conclusions. But...

[HamdenRice]

47. This reminds me of the attempt to teach baseball to the Italians!

I think I saw this on 60 Minutes about 20 years ago. It was a report about Major League Baseball (MLB) trying to go international by starting a league in Italy.

The problem was that when any one hit a fly ball to the outfield, the crowd would say "que bella" (sorry if that's Spanish, not Italian). Basically, the Italians were fascinated by the beauty of the individual hit or play, not by how it advanced the team! They loved pop up fly balls more than they loved home runs!

[CTyankee]

89. Near miss. It's "che bella!"

I don't know if they are quite so enthralled at their soccer teams' performances. Sometimes, their feelings can be a little rough...

[bemildred]

4. They had a real revolution. We have not.

And they have a long and sound intellectual tradition. The US hates intellectuals, for the most part. Technicians and engineers are OK, but people that just sit around and think and ask questions are dangerous.

[KAT119]

32. The French Revolution (1789–1799)

"was a period of political and social upheaval in the political history of France and Europe as a whole, during which the French governmental structure, previously an absolute monarchy with feudal privileges for the aristocracy and Catholic clergy, underwent radical change to forms based on Enlightenment principles of democracy, citizenship, and inalienable rights.
These changes were accompanied by violent turmoil, including executions and repression during the Reign of Terror, and warfare involving every other major European power. Subsequent events caused by the revolution include the Napoleonic wars, the restoration of the monarchy, and two additional revolutions as modern France took shape.
Over the next 75 years, France would be governed, variously, as a republic, a dictatorship, a constitutional monarchy, and two different empires before 1900."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

[tularetom]

5. Because the French who we like to ridicule as cowardly wusses

have much bigger cojones than we do.

[Jackpine Radical]

16. Always the testosterone argument shows up.

I think it's about something a lot more substantial than glandular secretions and hostility.

[Stargazer99]

6. Remember the French Reveloution?

That is the answer as to why

[applegrove]

7. I think too a big part of fighting the war on communism fell to the USA.

We were not terrified of everything socialist in Canada. Our unions worked with the far left party (there were three parties in Canada at the time) to bring things like socialized medicine to the table.

I really think the communist scare played much more heavily in the USA. And it was encouraged by corporations and the like. We had our communist dramas..but it seems it didn't sink in all that much and with not much of a military the fight was left to cities like Ottawa and army bases.

So we took the best of all models and went from there.

We also are not used to getting everything we want. Having Quebec in our nation meant we had to learn how to compromise or we would fall apart.

[blogslut]

8. What they did was revolt against the ruling class

Very fervently and bloodily. I would hope we don't come to that point before we turn ourselves around.

[Stargazer99]

12. I see there are a few that can think on this post

Reveloution is right and it will be hell until we have one unless the left can gain back some power

[Cleita]

10. The French, in the nineteenth century after the French Revolution

and while Napoleon Bonaparte was making himself emperor, were at where we are now. Maybe we need to send our Napoleon into Exile.

[Jackpine Radical]

13. Too bad it will be Paraguay, not Elba.

[Cleita]

23. I was hoping for Saudi Arabia.

I look forward to Laura and the twins in fashionable black sheets being escorted by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, maybe even Gonzo (they will need jobs and places to hide from justice too) when they go out to shop. The twins are damaged goods so the only marriage prospects they would have would be feeding gruel to an aged goatherd providing dad offers a handsome dowry. Of course they will probably end up being beheaded for public nudity long before that. Poor George and Laura won't have any booze anymore, but there's plenty of Khat and Opium to go around from what I understand.

Of course, I would rather see him and Poppy tried at the Hague for war crimes and here along with his brothers for ordinary crimes. Then I want to see them stripped of all their wealth to repay their victims including us the people of the United States. Laura and the other Steppford Bush wives and their children can go get jobs. Babs is too old but I'm sure there is a homeless shelter or a football stadium that might take her in.

[Jackpine Radical]

33. What an interesting imagination you have.

Would you like to be in charge of political re-education when we take over?

[Cleita]

43. This is why I can easily write fiction from a story telling pov, however,

I'm not so good on other aspects of the creative process. :-)

[long_green]

39. He escaped from Elba and died elsewhere

nm

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

40. Napoleon at first was the number one defender of the French Revolution

The Prussian Army had invaded France and was at the gates of Paris. At the same time, there still was internal civil war and war at France's borders. The nobility of Europe wanted to crush the revolution and Napoleon was the only one standing in the way when he seized power. Napoleon took matters in hand and was actually fighting the bad guys, the corrupt royalty and nobility of Europe. The Napoleonic code implemented by Napoleon was actually very enlightened, offering separation of church and state and freeing the Jewish population from the ghettos in every place Napoleon's army entered and offering them equal rights under the law. The Napoleonic Code guaranteed the freedom from oppression to former slaves, serfs and the working class in France and also made the church subordinate to the state, as well as establishing a great deal of economic reforms. Napoleon unfortunately let it go to his head later on and became Emperor, the corruption that entailed. But the Anglo-propagated notion in this country that Napoleon was uniquely a bad, bad man is false. The truth is, Napoleon in the end wasn't that desirable, but the people Napoleon was fighting were far worse and it required a strong man to try to prevent the French revolution from dying. Please think of who Napoleon was fighting when you criticize him (the Czar, the English crown, the King of Prussia, the Austrian Empire, the King of Spain).

[Cleita]

42. Fidel Castro started off with a noble cause too but fell in

love with the power. When Bonaparte crowned himself emperor he crossed the line into something no one in the world wants. The French know better than anyone. We are at a crossroads today as well. Our Constitution has allowed a Napoleon or a Fidel if you will to be our President, someone who pays lip service to the ideals behind it but who acts in a very different way. Our revolution too was fought for enlightened ideals but it only takes one demagogue, who takes the oath to uphold it with his fingers crossed, to destroy it. I think my analogy is still appropriate.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

54. The point I was making is that Napoleon in the end was bad

but the ones he was fighting, the aristocrats and nobility on the thrones of Europe who were trying to kill the ideals of the revolution, were far worse. What did the English do, along with the other crown heads of Europe when Napoleon was finally defeated? They put the brother of Louis XVI (the guy who was guillotined during the revolution) on the throne of France as Louis XVIII, another king (he had been living in exile in England).

Napoleon was an intellectual, possibly history's greatest military genius, in many ways a liberator, and through the Napoleonic Code a great reformer in the areas of human rights, freedom, and the end of the supreme unchecked rule of the church. To compare Bush to Napoleon is to me not quite appropriate as I believe Napoleon, despite his faults, was a much greater man.

[Cleita]

81. I understand what you are saying and you are correct that

Napoleon started off with the best of intentions. Like Napoleon, squeezed on all sides by the royalists, Castro was squeezed in a vise between two super powers, the USA and Russia. Neither was good for him but actually going along with Russia was the lesser of two evils for Fidel. Now try to understand what I am saying that neither made good choices after the fact.

Also, since I was really pointing out that the French became whom they are today after Napoleon, he has very little to do with this thread, and I am sorry I mentioned him. I should have stopped at the Revolution however some other nit picker would have pointed out Napoleon. Cheeeze!

[Democrats_win]

11. Moore mentioned that the French took to the streets to protest a lot.

Right or wrong, that's the reason he gave for the government's fear. Noam Chomsky, a somwhat radical American writer, has suggested that Americans need to get out into the streets to fix our country's foreign policy. Maybe it would work to fix everything else too.

[Jackpine Radical]

14. We went to the streets by the millions before the war started.

The press reported that there were "dozens" of us out there. Would the French demonstrations be as effective if they got no coverage?

[conspirator]

51. We didn't burn enough cars as the french youths did n/t

[loudsue]

61. The French weren't dependent upon the press when they started their fight

And we, too, would do well to ignore it. The only way the press will ever report any demonstrations is if they involve explosives, rioting, and police shooting and beating citizens.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Cleita]

20. We have tried that and have a little problem.

It's the spread and enormity of our country that makes it harder to do than in a smaller more compact country like France with centralized population centers. I live in a fairly rural county and there have protests weekly for years now in the two main cities and a few of the beach areas. They are hardly noticed by anyone where it counts, in Sacramento and in Washington, D. C.. Our local media never reports on them.

Now, I agree that we need to do so in the population centers of the east and west coasts. I think we would do better spreading the word on the internet and media, we just need organize it better and ratchet it up.

I think taking over the media to spread the truth would be a big plus. I just got a minor brain fart thinking about the series "Dark Angel" with Jessica Alba. In the series her rich, but liberal friend Logan has a subversive TV channel that interrupts propaganda broadcasts on the MSM with the truth. He does a hit and run so he doesn't get caught and arrested.

He and Max (Jessica) live in an America that is now a police state. (Talk about prophetic when they filmed this series.) We could do something similarly but legally. What if we bought commercial time reporting with the real news on CNN, MSNBC and the big three networks? Forget Fox. They probably wouldn't air it, or make sure when they did that they botched it somehow.

So there are some rich guys out there, Ted Turner, et al. with media savvy. They could put together a news bureau in one city, let's say NY or Wash. DC, or even LA or SF. Then they could purchase air time to do it and have a real news segment for 30 seconds to two minutes every hour.

I believe they could do it as a non-profit if they solicit donations and they could sell subscriptions for funding over the internet. This is a very rough idea on my part, so I'm sure it has a lot of holes in it but couldn't we so something like this? I would love to see someone come on after Chris Matthews says something inaccurate and insane and correct him in a commercial putting out the facts. :rofl:

[bobbolink]

28. We've also lost our fourth estate.

We've been content with propaganda for so long, and don't want to take the time and energy to "translate" said propaganda, that it's all watered down and distorted waaaay before it's seen by the rest of the population.

We're quite happy to be sold a bill of goods, as long as we can drive anywhere in our big cars, and watch whatever we want on TV.

To hell with the Smith's across town.

[Cleita]

36. ...

:hi:

[Jackpine Radical]

15. Let me broaden the issue a bit.

Many other European nations do about as well as the French, and without those things that are uniquely French. Scandinavia, Holland, Germany, even Spain these days, post-Franco. They all do much better than us at taking care of each other.

[KG]

18. in the growth arc of societies, europe is mature. america on the other hand, is barely an adolescent

and acts like it.

[femrap]

65. Maybe it's all that propaganda about

Capitalism being so much better than Communism or Socialism. Capitalism is dog eat dog competition...our culture is about 'looking out for number 1.' That type of attitude doesn't bode well for a 'community outlook' or one of sharing....and I think it's so funny that theses right wing American Taliban call themselves Christians....followers of Jesus...what a sick joke.

[dkofos]

17. Because the French are not afraid to take to the streets and protest!!

[supernova]

19. The French have had a recent reminder

in the Vichy gov't. That's within most French and Europeans living memories. I'm certain the people who lived through that and fought against it want to be as far away from that as possible. Ergo, the life that they have built today.

We have not had such a thing happen here for what 140 years? That was a tragic time, certainly. But I don't think we have had anyone here who governed with admitted bad intentions before. We've had bad actors certainly, who wanted bad things for certain parts of American society. But I don't think we've had someone who wanted to take the entire country over to the dark side before.

So, yes, we could learn a great deal from France, from Germany about how to deal with these assholes.

[bobbolink]

58. We certainly do need to learn from them.... but, since we're proudly "Number One",

I doubt we'd risk our ego. :(

"But I don't think we've had someone who wanted to take the entire country over to the dark side before. "

Not as designated leader, perhaps (although I think Reagan was close), but during FDR's administration, there were the capitalists who tried to overthrow him, and wanted fascism.

Unfortunately, it was kept hushed up, and not many USians seem to know about it, or care.

Hmmmm, maybe its that Europeans were so poor for so long after the war, and USians prospered.... the war made this a rich country.

DAmn......

As long as we have our "goods", we're happy.

Fat and happy.

[ThoughtCriminal]

21. Getting invaded and occupied by facsists for a few years

might move you a bit farther to the left than otherwise.

[hlthe2b]

22. Because they beheaded the arrogants who ruled with disdain

for the welfare of the people? Not all Frenchmen forget their history, perhaps...(unlike so many Amerikuns)

[spoony]

24. They beheaded a hell of a lot more than that.

Thanks, but I'll pass on a Reign of Terror here.

[hlthe2b]

52. I'm hardly advocating for such... simply pointing out the obvious

France's history continues to impact its present, that is all being said. :eyes:

[spoony]

53. I'd say France has survived despite

what happened, not because of it. Sorry for mislabeling you, there are a lot of people here who romanticise those bloody years.

[xchrom]

25. centuries of heavy handed autocratic rule.

monarchies, the church, local ''lords'' etc.

the french -- like many other europeans take the idea very seriously that government is there to serve.
and they take democracy seriously.

also -- since they have mostly homogenous cultures -- it's easier for them to identify with each other.

two things keep us really fucked -- both myths not really worth much.

one is the myth of individualism -- bootstraps, etc -- debunked here ad nauseum -- but true in the culture of america.

second is the mistrust that we've built up in the masses of government.

we have created wholesale, deep rooted, mistrust in the very thing that binds us as a country -- and the effects are horrifying -- i.e. katrina.

there are subsets under all this -- mistrust of education, fear of foreigners{isn't that one ironic} etc -- but for me -- those first two basically sets it all up.

[cyclezealot]

26. We are living in France for a couple years.

A lot of it is the media. It is varied and independent. Sarkozy knows touch the medical system, he'd be taking on the whole nation, as they did when Chirac tried to get his PM Juppe to turn the French Health care system into a US style HMO. Literally, millions took to the street. People are informed and involved. Sarkozy talked tough about unionism( which is a Constitutional guarantee). But upon assuming office, who did he talk to first to quiet the Unions. The unions. Also, watching the past election for president. The campaigns are so very different. No attack ads. Only talk, talk, talk and free air time for the candidates. Finally, the presidential debate. It's not structured. It's more like a lively discussion between candidates with plenty of time for cross questioing by the opponent. Little press involvement.
Another difference in the French Revolution to the US revolution. The Catholic clergy took the side of the Royalty. Wrong move. France is guaranteed Seperation of Church and State by the Constitution.

[bobbolink]

27. Much of Europe was profoundly changed by the Second World War

They saw and felt enough suffering to change their outlook on what life and human life is about.

They had to develope the courage and resolve to defend their countries. That often brings about a deep questioning of values.

Once people have suffered enough to come to the conclusion that all people deserve to live comfortably and in peace, and have had to fight to accomplish that, they are much more willing to demand a good life for all.

USians are still stuck in the "rugged individual" mirage, and don't have a sense of belonging to the whole.

Many Europeans consider the US as a nation to be quite adolescent.

I can't say I disagree with them.

[pitohui]

48. yes that is my thinking too

everyone was in the same shitty boat of total destruction of infrastructure, many had lost families or family members, and so on

it was hard to look at the world and have that optimistic idea that if you just work hard, you will have millions and fuck the other guy, because in time of horrible continent spanning war, it doesn't matter how hard you work, in fact, working hard and being a hero might just mean you get your head blown off quicker

so it would be difficult to buy into the capitalist bullshit and easier to accept that all need to chip in to rebuild and to work for the people's health

notice we had similar situations in england, germany, all over western europe with programs for public health care suddenly popping up as a human right

[bobbolink]

55. Interesting that we seem to be the only ones seeing it through this lens...

"everyone was in the same shitty boat of total destruction of infrastructure, many had lost families or family members, and so on"

Exactly! Very well put, and seems to me worth discussing. But, I guess it's not on the radar.

In a similar vein, I was just talking with someone who went through an experience of a fire that burned a town. They ALL went through it, they have the same symptoms of PTSD, etc., so there is support and understanding.

People like me who go through poverty alone just suffer alone and people don't feel a need to understand what it is we're deealing with. It's just so much easier to dismiss and judge us.

"notice we had similar situations in england, germany, all over western europe"

Scandanavia was also hard hit by the war, a lot of suffering, and they, also, have a commitment to social justice. Not just in health care, but education and all the other aspects.

The US just hasn't suffered enough yet. It's going to have to get much worse. That's not a pretty thought.

You have expressed it well, and I wish more would think about this angle. But.... no.... I guess we just gotta suffer first. :(

[supernova]

57. I said something similar upthread

I totally agree with you.

[bobbolink]

59. Thanks! Somehow I missed it.... I replied there.

Thanks for pointing out your post. :hi:

[KAT119]

34. The French people sent us our beautiful Statue of Liberty....

[femrap]

66. I was thinking the same thing...

Isn't that the most amazing thing.....they build this gorgeous statue and ship it over here to us.

I visited France a couple of times when I was in college and I loved it. I've always wanted to go back...I wonder how Americans are received now?

The French appreciate the good things of life...good food, good conversation, good books, good wine...

oooooh la la...long live France! C'est magnifique! I think I need to brush up on my French.

[Greyhound]

37. The French, generally, pride themselves on being acutely aware of what is going on,

and their media is still somewhat independent. They follow events and the actions of their government far more closely then we do and their form of government is much more representative of their constituency.

Over the last 30 - 40 years we have seen exactly what the weakness of our zero-sum, winner take all, system is. There are few left that can remember a time when voting for someone was the norm. Now we are always left with the evil of two lessers.
:kick:

ETA: They also retain an education system that educates, rather than indoctrinates, so they have the ability to understand the issues and extrapolate the consequences of actions. We have become entirely dependent on some easily purchased "expert" or pundit to tell us what something means.

[EVDebs]

38. Actually, we got it right in our revolution and they got it wrong

but only now the tables are turned. We based our revolution on Freemasonic principles and liberty, fraternity, equality (a masonic motto btw, as are the tri-colors of Red White and Blue-- white for 1st degree/entered apprentice, blue for 2nd degree/fellowcraft, and red for 3rd degree/Master).

The reign of terror was an overreaction of the radical Illuminati-types with the anti religious angle and demonization of the aristocracy carried to bloody lengths.

Our more insulated culture forced Tories to Canada or to Britain while Washington's Freemasons adhered to Tolerance. In France, tolerance ? I think not.

That came at a greater price. Nowadays the SMOM Knights of Malta brand of autocracy has taken over our elites and stimulate the arms and corporate lacky agenda.

We need another Freemasonic revolution.

[KG]

41. actually , the american revolution wasnt a revolution at all. it was a separatist movement

led by the local wealthy ruling class against who didn't want to pay taxes to an even wealthier ruling class.

[spoony]

46. That's as good a description as

is possible in two lines! Totally spot on.

[EVDebs]

69. Yeah, right, the 'afterthought' insinuated around the world ! Spot on dudes.

[mudesi]

44. Their system of government is different

The American two party corporately funded system is not really democratic at all.

[JacquesMolay]

45. It took a long time, dude - hundreds of years of class conflict ...

.... before those types of reforms were put in place.

[Jackpine Radical]

49. C'est vraie, M. deMolay.

[JacquesMolay]

50. Oui. Merci.

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. Two words: Marie Antionette. n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

75. FYI, Marie Antoinette never said "Let them eat cake." In fact,

when she became queen, she could have received a large sum of money, called "the Queen's Belt," which came from taxes, of course. She refused to take money from the people and said,

"Belts are no longer in fashion."

Marie and Louis were more concerned about the poor than most royalty have been. They had the misfortune to live in a difficult time when droughts were destroying crops, with the negative impact on the economy and on the people you might expect. Louis did not know how to solve the country's problems, but he wasn't given much of a chance, either. It's too bad they were guillotined instead of exiled; it was hardly their fault they were born to royal families. The Revolution was awfully bloody, killing more people than needed to effect changes.

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. Nevertheless, it effected lasting change. n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

83. But it wasn't necessary to kill so many people. nt

[bobbolink]

80. On the other hand, poor folk die without cause all the time. Unmourned.

Thank you for the history lesson. It's always good to know how mistaken our school books were. :)

I can understand the sense of injustice for them, as they did, apparently, nothing to warrant such a dire end.

However, many of us poor folk have also done nothing to warrant the dire endings we suffer, but we are completely forgotten in the history books.

My Kingdom For A Belt! :)

[DemBones DemBones]

84. Of course most of us will be forgotten while some of the rich and

powerful won't. My point was simply that it was no more their fault that they were born to royal families than it is the fault of any child who is born in poverty. Luck plays a large part in life, as I believe we've discussed before. ;-) I sent you a PM.

[RainDog]

60. maybe

some of the differences have to do with the French Revolutionaries' insistence on taking away the power of the clergy (confiscating their lands, assets, etc.) They also were anti-slavery while the U.S. was making that 2/3 compromise. Napoleon, dictator that he was, was also "enlightened" and brought universal education along with conquest.

Before and during WW2, France had a strong communist party. They were the core of the resistance and thus had some input after the war was over. Issues of communism were argued from merit, not by scare tactics. Unions were and are strong because they did not have the illusion that all they needed to do was win the lottery and they, too, could join the rich and spit on everyone else. The French recognize they have a class system and thus act to protect the lower classes. The U.S. pretends class doesn't exist.

Of all the differences, I think strong unions are the greatest source of power for the people in France. Repukes and some dems have fought against unions for a long time. I'm not sure about France, but in most Western European nations, voting is mandatory (or else face a fine.) So voter apathy isn't as great among people there. And this builds upon itself. The more overworked and put down people are, the less likely they are to think they can change their situation.

In the U.S. pre WW2, union leaders and radicals were hunted down and lynched by Pinkerton and many in the U.S. did not give a shit. --commies were godless, remember? The French do not have a strong tradition of protestantism and literalism and the anti-intellectualism that most often accompanies this pov. --not all protestants, of course -- the U.S. had a civil war, but instead of throughly destroying the southern power structures, people were allowed to maintain lands and power when some complained the restoration was too severe. so the U.S. lived on with racism still institutionalized, and racism keeps people from the same class from recognizing their mutual interests.

and as Moore noted, France really tried to create the idea of "liberty, equality and fraternity" by their laws. jmho.

[Jed Dilligan]

62. May 1968

They lost their capital city to student and worker protestors, and the generals told the president that they couldn't vouch for which side the army would be on if it were sent in.

We have nothing like that kind of solidarity here, and until we do they will walk all over us. The people who think voting for one party of the rich or another will end the exploitation of us are cuckoo.

[EVDebs]

72. Yeah, the Prague Spring ! Dubczek and free thought and hope for the future

[Jed Dilligan]

73. My parents were on the barricades

It was a nearly bloodless revolution and for them a beautiful and exhilarating, if frightening, experience.

Vive la France!

[EVDebs]

74. DU posting of Paul Krugman's "French Connections" ("Nous voilà, Lafayette!" , here on DU at least)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x296067

[many a good man]

63. We got democracy without a class revolution

Unlike almost all the others, where the class revolution preceded and resulted in democracy. It's hard to overstate the importance of this difference.

[Solon]

70. If I could recommend posts, I would recommend yours...

Its profound that people don't recognize this as the biggest difference between our oligarchy and western Democracies. I remember the interview in Sicko with the "Old Labour" politician in Britain. He was saying that when power moves from the wallet to the ballot, then the poor have the power over government, and not the rich. The United States was founded and perpetuates a myth that "all men are created equal", in a sense, this has occurred, slowly, over time with the enfranchisement and freeing of slaves, voting rights for women, etc. However, this is only within a legal framework, and isn't even complete yet, but it doesn't apply to societal rules or economics.

In "Old Europe" class stratification was a legal barrier to advancement, usually a small artisan, intellectual "middle class" was allowed to arise, but only those of "good blood" were allowed to rule. The peasants, being the majority, rose up many times, but were beaten down almost every time as well, because the nobility were able to afford to hire mercs with good weapons. The peasants eventually won out in many nations, for good or ill, due to sheer numbers, tenacity, and in most cases, the "middle" classes backing them.

The United States, in contrast, never had this class stratification as a legal framework, but rather as an economic and societal framework instead. The United States billed itself as a "classless" society, where it doesn't matter how poor you were coming here, you can be rich, and your children could even end up as President. This was and is true, for a small minority of the peasantry of the United States, but for the vast majority, the barrier to advancement was just as real as it was in "Old Europe", just not written in law. Because of this history, in the United States, the economic elites prefer that this talk of class is virtually forbidden, the myth is useful to them preserving their power, economic and legal.

The whole "streets paved with gold" and "anybody can make it" terminology is purposefully advanced for a specific purpose, to keep the huddled masses coddled, and virtually unaware of their poverty. Even the Middle class is just barely that, most are in debt, many who call themselves middle class are barely above poverty level according to the Census. The Propaganda was successful, the masses are lulled into a sense of being better off than their cousins in Europe or elsewhere in the world, and who do we compare ourselves to? Third world nations that have even worse class stratification than we do.

The closest the United States ever was to an actual class struggle was at the end of the Gilded Age, when the rich were so rich a single man could pay off the ENTIRE national debt of the nation, and the poor were working and living within the "Company", living, and dying, all on someone else's property. When the poor organized, the government didn't help, it sent out the Army to suppress them, there was a sense that revolution was near. Teddy Roosevelt was able to, through some programs and being the "working man's" President, stave off this talk of armed struggle. It was bullshit, of course.

Then, barely a generation later, another crisis occurred that could have lead to a class revolution, the Great Depression, and yet another man, related to the one before, was able to do JUST ENOUGH, to preserve the system as it was, but help the working man just enough to again stave off Revolution. At this point in time, I would say we are in for another Gilded age, the question is, is there anyone with the political will to stave off this possible revolution?

[DemBones DemBones]

78. I would recommend *your* post, too.

Americans are lied to all their lives about how anyone can get rich in America, anyone can be president.

In fact, anyone who gets rich all too often does it dishonestly, and no one gets elected to office without a lot of money behind them, which means corporate money, which means they're bought and paid for.

Because people believe the lie that they can become rich, they support tax cuts for the rich, thinking "I don't want to have to pay high taxes when I get rich." Most have no idea how much money those in the upper 1-2% tax bracket have or how far they are from ever having that much.

Most have no idea how close they are to homelessness, either, saddled with mortgages and credit card debt. An injury or illness can put anyone out of work, unable to work, and Social Security Disability, if you can get it, usually pays about $700 a month, maybe as much as $1000, which will not pay the bills by any means.

Our society is extremely unjust and will remain so until people wake up and refuse to take it anymore. Unionizing on a massive scale could be the way to start. In Europe, the unions have far more power than they do here and workers are better off as a result. A lot of states have anti-union laws euphemistically called "right to work" laws that need to be taken down.

[treestar]

64. They don't have the puritanical streak

Clinton and Monica L. would not have distracted them.

[KillCapitalism]

67. They aren't duped by an outright lying media & bread and circuses.

I'm not sure what the media is like in France, but it could never be as bad as what it is here, they would not put up with such shenanigans. Also, it seems the French aren't addicted to celebrities, reality TV, iphones/ipods, etc. They take the time to become politically informed.

[EVDebs]

71. Agreed. Corporate profits shouldn't dictate whether anyone gets 'healthcare' or not

The French practicality, much like the Italian aversion to waste, means that in healthcare no one is left behind.

Living well is the best revenge and these cultures give everyone that minimum standard, a moral response not some measured corporate response to what society needs.

[Selatius]

68. They have PUBLICLY FUNDED ELECTIONS free from CORPORATISM and a FREE MEDIA

They actually enforce their anti-trust laws. They would NEVER allow the kind of corporate consolidation over the flow of information that has cursed this nation of ours. They did it after spilling the blood of countless tyrants and thugs. They fought for it, over and over and over again.

In France, it's called bribery and punishable by a prison sentence. In the US, it's called lobbying, and it's perfectly legal.

That is why we are a nation dominated by business interests. Until a constitutional amendment is passed instituting public financing of elections and an outright ban on all money outside tax dollers, the US will continue to suffer and ultimately perish in the darkness of greed.

[DemBones DemBones]

76. Very important points. We should not have to

suffer through wars and revolutions to get to that point. We should be able to say, "Hey, let's look at what really works in other countries and let's do it."

Europeans have single-payer healthcare (though they can still see private doctors), long vacations, decent wages, strong labor unions. We should have the same. In Italy, businesses close for two or three hours mid-day so people can enjoy a relaxed lunch, go home and take a nap, whatever. That used to be the custom in the Southern U.S., too, since mid-day is so hot in summer, as it is in Italy. It's a very sensible custom. Then we got obsessed with clocks and efficiency and now American workers are lucky to get a half hour for lunch (many get only twenty minutes) and are rarely allowed to leave the place they work during their lunch period. We'd be a lot healthier if we had leisurely meals and more vacation time.

[Bryn]

82. This should be Michael Moore's next movie

America shouldn't be dominated by business interests and lobbying. It's so hard to believe this is allowed in USA.

[JI7]

85. if you read the history of France, especially the French Revolution it's easy to understand

why the people there are the way they are.

they went through some horrible things including in just the last century which people still have memories of.

[Eurobabe]

86. One word: Guillotine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine

[Prophet 451]

87. Several reasons

1. The French have public intellectuals; the US is, for the most part, virulently anti-intellectual.

2. The US spent so long fighting communism that anything which sounded even vaguely like taking care of others became associated with socialism and was therefore demonised. In France, that didn't happen so there's a fairly mature socialist state (which is not to say there aren't problems). Hence also the current "free market uber alles" crowd.

3. Attitude. I think this is the big one. The US was settled initially by Puritans and the Puritan attitudes toward both work ("work ethic" being really a euphemism for "workaholic") and pleasure (the devil's passtime) are still around to a large extent. While the US claims to prize the pursuit of happiness, the current climate is entirely devoted to the achievment of wealth and/or power. In France, they didn't have that so they really do believe in the pursuit of happiness or, at least, pleasure. There's a reason those ridiculous virginity pledges have never worked in France and there's a reason they have some of the world's best food. Think of France's contributions to world cuisine. Now think of America's contributions to world cuisine (the hamburger and even that was just a refinement of something used by both Rome and Germany).

4. Religion. The US is a comparatively young nation and you have freedom of religion enshrined in your constitution (disregarding the repeated efforts of some to undermine it). The combination of those has made the US the single most religious nation in the Western world. France, like most European nations, has had to struggle to find a balance between religion in the private and public spheres. Sometimes, that goes too far (such as the ban of Muslim headscarves in schools) but for the most part, it works. That's not to say that many French people aren't deeply religious but it's simply not discussed outside of their private life and/or church. It's left between the indivual and their god. Contrast that with the US where on any street, someone is liable to grab you and ask if you've accepted Jesus as your personal saviour (and if you're like me, the response might well be "No and fuck you for asking such a personal question"). In France, virtually no-one disputes that evolution, while incomplete, is accurate (at least, in general terms although the details are still up for debate). In the US, something like half the population disbelieves evolution and that is entirely down to religion.

5. War. The US hasn't had a war on it's mainland in a very long time. The French had one around sixty years ago. People are less likely to listen to the military-industrial complex when they can remember (or be told by their parents) about a time when bombs rained down on their own town. The US was populated by England when we were at our most arrogant and then successfully kicked us out (and, in fairness, you were right to do so). That arrogance, inherited from the English and then reinforced by a string of quick victories, has never gone away. The US still has a tendancy to think of itself as greatest, invincible, entitled to run the world for it's benefit and exclusively blessed by the divine. It tends to make the assumption that everyone would love the US if they knew about it well enough. In contrast, the French have lost a several wars (hell, the British and French spent best part of a millenium merrily slaughtering each other). There is a certain kind of wisdom that can only be learned in defeat and while the US has been defeated a few times (i.e. Vietnam), it has never been forced to learn those lessons. The result is that the US is arrogant in a way the French aren't (anyone about to go off about French arrogance, that's not the French, that's just Pariseans. They're like New Yorkers on too much coffee). Which leads me nicely to:

6. Nationalism. Hate to tell you this but the US is an incredibly nationalist culture. In most of the western world, soldiers are professionals doing a job. A dangerous job certainly and they should be and are given credit for that but a job all the same. In the US, soldiers are almost deified (we'll leave the Rethugs screwing them over aside for the moment). The US spends more on it's military than the rest of the world combined. This year's increase in military spending alone is more than the entire military budget of many nations and still, you don't feel safe and even when it was graphically shown that conventional military forces could not protect you (9/11), still the US kept chasing after bigger bomb, guns and bullets. Most of us love our country but most of us also recognise it's faults. Only an American would have coined the term "love it or leave it", only an American would have coined the term "my country, right or wrong". To most of the world, your country is where you live, a gestalt entity made up of the people in it and thus, changing and flexible as attitudes change. In the western world, only the US seems to hold the country as something distinct from it's people

[BornagainDUer]

88. Their government is not controlled by merchants of death. This ...

is partly the result of history where the US military industrial complex got bloated from its success in two world wars.
Ike's farewell address is singularly emphatic on the threat the MIC poises for democracy. Then look at how Reagan turned Ike's caution on its ear by starting the "window of vulnerability" shit.

[stanwyck]

90. You are so on target.

I wish the Dems would make Ike's speech a part of every debate from now until the general election.