I'm convinced: Until America goes "France", NOTHING WILL CHANGE

[TonyMontana]

French unions blockade fuel supplies to protest pension reforms

500,000 on protest strike in France (You read that right: That's FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE)

...
More importantly, the French have decided to take to the streets in the millions – including large-scale strikes and work stoppages – to defend hard-won retirement gains. (It must be emphasised, since the media sometimes forgets to make the distinction, that only a tiny percentage of France's demonstrators have engaged in any kind of property damage and even fewer in violence, with all but these few protesting peacefully.)


...it was perplexing to watch the French elect Nicolas Sarkozy president in 2007...But Sarkozy had a lot of help from the major media, which was quite enchanted with the American model at the time and helped promote a number of myths that formed part of his campaign. Among these were the idea that French social protections and employment benefits were "unaffordable in a global economy", and that employers would hire more people if it were easier to fire them, and if taxes were cut for the rich.

...Sarkozy has recently abandoned one of his most politically unpopular tax cuts for the rich...

...Polls show more than 70% support for France's strikers, despite the inconvenience of fuel shortages and other disruptions.

Sarkozy should retire, says France


You know why nothing changes? Because people don't take to the streets. Not really. A one day rally in Washington isn't going to cut it. Bitching on Democratic Underground isn't going to do it. Until the people get together to fight the absolute corruption in Washington, nothing is going to change.

It has to CONTINUE. It can't be a one day thing and then everybody goes home to watch So You Think You Can Dance. This is the EIGHTH STRAIGHT DAY OF PROTESTS across France over, of all things, PENSION reforms. Everybody needs to get out there and actually STOP the government. And when I say everybody, I mean EVERYBODY. Millions of French protesters have been taking to the streets. For over a week now, NATION WIDE.

Until the people stand up to the government, expect to continue to be trampled on by the corporations, the media, and the politicians who work for them.

[LiberalEsto]

1. We, the Sheeple

are so numbed up on Prozac and imbecilic tv programs, so pacified by computer games and electronic toys, and so filled with corporate propaganda that it's not likely to happen. Unfortunately.

[whathehell]

12. There's a lot more to it than that......Everything

is not about "dumbed down" Americans:eyes:

Don't get me wrong, I admire France and many of the European social policies, but they, along with the other countries of Europe, have an entirely different history than we do and it's played a large part in the way their societies have developed.

[blindpig]

14. We have a great commonality

we are all workers. As the ruling class cranks up their 'austerity' thievery that will become very apparent to many.

[bobbolink]

17. I'm not a "worker". I don't count?

[blindpig]

19. Of course you're a worker.

Come on Bobbie, it's about class. Workers who are unable to work, disabled, dependents, retired, unemployed, whatever, all are working class. We are in this together.

Besides, you do work, you put in some hours in your advocacy, only you don't get paid.:(

Solidarity

[bobbolink]

20. I will continue to make an issue of this. The rhetoric doesn't matter... the reality is that those

of us who aren't able to work are thrown under the bus because of this language.

I realize that you don't agree. I only wish you would be willing to understand the damage it is doing.

It hurts that those of you who consider yourselves so "aware" and not willing to hear those of us who are affected.

That is the same process as the cons.... *THEY* know best, and tell us to accept their view.

Same with socialists... "We consider you workers, so you need to take on that view, even if it is hurting you."

[Ken Burch]

87. What would you prefer as an alternative to "workers"?

What term would you find inclusive.

We can't just say "people"-by itself, that isn't a particulary radical term and doesn't lead us to social transformation.

[Better Believe It]

100. Have you not read any socialist literature or ever talked to socialists?

""We consider you workers, so you need to take on that view, even if it is hurting you."

That total nonsense about socialists you just posted .... with quotation marks!!!

[bobbolink]

119. If you were willing to listen to people, it would make sense to you.

[maryf]

57. I'm constantly amazed...

Considering your hardship, you are about the hardest worker I know Bobbie!

[Better Believe It]

99. What do you do for a living? Not work?

You should support the working class. The alternative? Support Wall Street and corporate America.

I take it you're not employed by anyone.

If you own a small business you probably work.

If you own a big business or are a CEO, you primarkly "work" at enhancing your profits at the expense of the people you employ.

If you're a Wall Street operative you do nothing useful and certainly can't be described as work.

[blindpig]

106. Um...

Bobby is homeless and unable to work.
You really blew that one.

[bobbolink]

124. Thank you!

:pals:

[bobbolink]

120. When you are ready to LISTEN instead of denigrate, then we can talk.

And if you were aware of those who are different from you, some of those questions you pose would be obvious to you.

[JDPriestly]

108. If you weren't born into a family with lots of money, you are a worker.

[bobbolink]

121. Think about that again.

The lack of understanding here is amazing to me.

[JDPriestly]

128. "Worker" in this sense refers to the income level, not to the employment history.

[bobbolink]

132. What I am trying to get you all to understand is that this supports the very meme that is HURTING

those of us who can't work.

Are you willing to hear that?

This is doing DAMAGE.

I'm asking you to think beyond what you are used to thinking.

[mntleo2]

40. Yes we do have commonality, this is important because ...

...those of us who are in poverty and have been for years are merely the forerunners of others falling below the poverty line who thought they were in that class BECAUSE they "worked hard" as if the poor never does "work hard enough". The truth is it is a myth that hard work the answer to poverty. Poverty is an Institution and blaming the poor is a subtle and not-so-subtle form of hatred for those who somehow "did not work hard enough". Especially when the only "work" considered is "hard PAID work. Pfffft to any other unpaid work that the poor do every day, or the sacrifices they make as tax payers, giving up far more of their incomes than any other class to pay those taxes, whether or not they are performing "paid" work or not.

It is all about what you see as "work" you know? Is only paid work making a rich man richer the *only* way to contribute to our society? Or is the work one does raising the next generation to take care of us when we can no longer do it, more important "work"?

As a woman who worked hard all my life in PAID McJobs, I earned my time, but I have nothing to show for it and no, I did not waste my money, I raised three children on what little I made. I also know LOTS of people who cannot work for a wage due to disability or situation whose intelligent, community-enhancing, caring work does FAR more than, "do you want fries with that" ever did for a community except pay the taxes, which whether you are a paid worker or not, you still pay.

It is important to know work is work, paid or not and that the unpaid work IS stil;l work.

Cat in Seattle

[maryf]

58. It is important to know work is work, paid or not

amen

[Odin2005]

63. Blaming the Poor for being poor is like blaming rape victims for getting raped.

poverty only exists because one group of people is exploiting another group

[truedelphi]

77. Brilliantly stated. Thanks for saying it Odin2005. n/t

[bobbolink]

125. "Poverty only exists because one group of people is exploiting another group."

Thus spake Odin2005

:applause:

[Odin2005]

130. Thanks!

:hi:

[harmonicon]

94. Nothing says "class" like insulting people who take anti-depressants. (nt)

[LiberalEsto]

104. How is that an insult?

I'm taking antidepressants myself. I would probably not be alive without them. I've been out of work 2 years and my career, newspaper reporting, has all but disappeared. I'm 58 and obsolete. I really don't need some people to jump to erroneous conclusions and imagine that somehow I'm insulting people who take necessary meds.

[harmonicon]

105. "numbed up on Prozac" isn't an insult?

As you state, these medications save lives and make people able to function in society. However, your original statement suggest that such medications would keep people from being engaged.

[LiberalEsto]

109. I happen to think some people use it unnecessarily

I believe it is over-prescribed, just as many other medications are. And I do think our corporate masters want to keep us as numbed out and ignorant and disengaged as possible. Because otherwise we might possibly start acting up like the French.

[harmonicon]

114. Your evidence of this is what?

Are you a medical doctor? This hubris is galling. So, you're all for "do as I say, not as I do" in every case, I guess. You will criticize those who live their lives as you live yours yet describe them as "numbed out and ignorant", and then shield yourself from criticism of this in regards to protesting by employing the royal "we".

[LiberalEsto]

117. Well 'scuse me for expressing an opinion in DU

I've been a DUI member for more than 8 years. This year I feel DU has turned into a nitpicking PC place where too many people are looking to jump on other people and raise a fuss about the least thing.

Lighten up.

[harmonicon]

118. You say "opinion", I say "insult". One is a DU rule violation.

I could give a damn how long you've been around here for. Criticizing another member for not having been around as long as you or having a lower post count is another rule violation, but I guess like everything else, you think this shouldn't apply to you (because you're so special). The fact that you can't formulate a cogent defense of your stated positions isn't my fault - don't attack me personally for it. Maybe you think calling those who take medications for their mental health "sheeple" (use of the word itself is a sign of mindlessly following a hollow trend) is a "least thing", but I don't. Can you please tell me which illnesses it is not ok to criticize people for getting treatment for and which ones it is? I'd like to know. Rush Limbaugh has mocked someone for the effects of the drugs they take to treat Parkinson's - is that ok?

[Tsiyu]

122. There is a best selling book called "Prozac Nation"

i believe.

This poster was not insulting those who need anti-depressants.
I agree with the poster that it is an overprescribed medication. I think even the shrimp are getting some in the water supply.

the poster was discussing the numbed state of America and used Prozac as one example. We could also say people are numbed out by TV, shopping, internet usage, Sara Lee or Miller Light.

"prozac" has become a term to mean "numbing agent"

I agree with the poster you are attacking

Edit to add: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/11/health/he-themd11

[harmonicon]

129. I'm not attacking anyone.

I'd always rather not attack. I'm a nice, generally passive, anarchist. I'd just rather that people don't insult me and my friends concerning any medications we may take for our various illnesses. I'm lucky enough to live in the UK where I can be treated for mental illness and afford to pay the very reasonable prescription fee for the medication that I need. I'd rather not be called one of the "sheeple" (does that make me a sheep?) for receiving my prescribed medication. Furthermore, unlike the vast majority of people on DU (this isn't some claim to fame, but simply circumstance), I marched in an anti-Sarkozy rally the night that he was elected; it just seemed like the right thing to do to demonstrate solidarity with the French people while I was living in their country, though I couldn't vote there myself. For all of these reasons, I do not think I am attacking anyone, but simply defending myself against wide-sweeping gross accusations which should not - and do not - apply to me.

[Tsiyu]

134. Peace

I understand generalizations about substances - legal and otherwise.


I pick my battles, and I can't call out everyone who stereotypes those who use cannabis, even when i know I am defending those with PTSD, cancer, MS...

I understand your frustration and share it, but I don't feel the poster was making a specific insult. The comment, I believe, was a cultural reference many make.

Have a great weekend...:hi:

[hobbit709]

2. The French know that occasionally it's "Aux Barricades!"

If you want the government to pay attention.

[closeupready]

3. Part of the problem is the language barrier - many Americans

feel more kinship with Australians than they do with the French, even though Australia was a latter-day British colony, from which very few Americans (relatively) can count their immigrants as ancestors, due to the common language of English. Even though France has been an American ally for as long as the US has existed, and even though a good portion of Americans can count French people as their own ancestors.

Just the way it is. But K&R anyway.

[blindpig]

4. You are absolutely correct

It is the only power we really got. And look at all of the pictures that are being posted, the exuberance on the faces of so many of the participants, that is the realization of solidarity. I want me some of that.

k&r

[HughBeaumont]

5. Um, Washington isn't the only thing that's corrupt.

Pure unfettered Capitalism by it's very nature has nothing but a corrput inevitability. It's a mixed economy now, but if corporations fully establish the Plutonomy, then pure capitalism will be the rule of law.

One reason we're not in the streets is quite simple - health care. France has a universal system, we do not. We're too tethered to our jobs to lose health care since it's not provided for us. There's more for us to lose since they're unionized and we're pretty much grasped by the corporate genitalia.

Plus, we seem to be forgetting that 80% of us are largely unaffected by all of this. Our bellies are full. We're far too satisfied. Even on the left side of things, we're not even on the same page.

Not all of us hate the president so much as we hate what Corporate America is doing to us. We've been so successfully divided and conquered that we've taken our eye off the ball on where our anger should be directed. We should be storming corporate boardrooms and plowing past their security guards.

The government will likely listen once we all physically stand up to Big Business. Of course, that would mean worldwide economic upheaval and police and the military opening fire on the citizens.

And that's probably why it will never happen.

[TBF]

6. Solidarity - its the only way they'll listen to us. nt

[The2ndWheel]

7. I thought we were trying to create jobs?

The issue might be that we have too many things to do.

On the one hand, we need federal stimulus money going into the hands of those that will spend it so as to stir demand and create jobs in the process, but we also have to shut the country down economically in a nation wide general strike.

True, that stimulus money is locked up and not getting to the people, so now would be the time for a lengthy strike/protest, since so many people don't have a job to go to anyway. Although, for all the headlines, nothing has really changed in France yet either. But then the people in France don't want things to change, they want the retirement age to stay the same. Not so much a protest for change, as much as it's one for the status quo.

We have no idea what we want. Other than the best of both worlds.

[The Uncola]

8. As badly as we ...

.. need to take a stand like the French have, I highly doubt it will happen. More likely, the people of this Nation will quietly and submissively do the bidding of our owners. Neither major political party will stand up for us. The few decent politicos there are, get beatdown and silenced by the Corporate Machine. Life as we once knew it is ending and realistically, we are powerless to do much about it.

[SocialistLez]

9. If Americans felt their actions would matter

I think they would protest.
I sure as heck would.

As we've been talking about in one of my Sociology classes, there is strength in numbers.

"Workers of the world UNITE!!"-Marx

[Downtown Hound]

16. The trouble with that is that people are always waiting for huge numbers

We're never going to get huge numbers unless people just show up regardless of what the numbers are.

I participated in the Day X protests in San Francisco (the weekend the Iraq War broke out). There were somewhere between 20,000 to 30,000 people that took to the streets in unlawful protest. People blockaded the financial district, military recruitment centers were looted and destroyed, mobs tried to shut down the Bay Bridge, and 2200 people were arrested, the largest number from any protest of the entire war.

We put such a strain on the local government that the mayor eventually made a public plea to us to stop. We were draining them financially and morally. The idea that civil disobedience doesn't or couldn't work when done in large numbers is horseshit. Thousands of people being defiant in the streets can cause ENORMOUS problems for the powers that be.

The problem is that everybody is waiting for somebody else to pick up the flag and charge.

[Hannah Bell]

27. +100. & just appearing at marches isn't the main point, but the behind-the-scenes organizing

that creates continued networked solidarity, an actual movement, not just big numbers at a single rally.

the protests against iraq are instructive. lots of numbers at rallies, not much movement-building, fell apart.

[murphyj87]

10. US needs riots

In France there is rioting in the streets because the government wants to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62.

In Canada the majority of workers retire at ages between 55 and 60 and can receive Canada Pension Plan at age 60 and a further $600 a month Old Age Security for every Canadian (not only workers) at the age of 65. In other words, if your wife was a "stay at home Mom" she doesn't get CPP because she didn't work outside the home, but she still gets $600 a month OAS and you get $600 a month OAS as well.

Americans already receive the least pension in Social Security in the industrialized world at the highest retirement age and Republicans want you to get even less pension at an even higher retirement age.

No other nation in the industrialized world would stand for as little as you get NOW at so HIGH a retirement age, and you are about to get LESS or NOTHING at an OLDER age. Be prepared to riot in the streets as they are doing in France if Republicans touch Social Security amount or age.

I retired at age 55, and the total of my company pension, Canada Pension Plan, and Old Age Security is well over $41,000 a year, just less than 75% of what I made when I was working.


Say the secret woid and the duck comes down - Marx (Groucho)

[Downtown Hound]

15. Trouble is that whenever there's a riot in America

Most liberals instantly turn against those rioting. Even if it's only a few broken corporate windows, most people on the left and here on this board consider that unacceptable even if the alternative is allowing the powers that be to lead us to our doom.

I have no desire to riot, but I for one fully support those anarchists that dress up in black and destroy corporate property. After all the shit they've done to us and the planet, the last thing I'm going to do is condemn somebody for busting some of their windows.

[prolesunited]

23. Hey, go riot and break some corporate windows

Nobody is stopping you. Perhaps post a copy of your manifesto on FB.

[Downtown Hound]

30. I don't have a manifesto and I already said I have no desire to riot

That's not the same thing as condemning those who do, which I refuse to do.

I believe they call that movement solidarity. Turning on each other over a few acts of vandalism helps no one but the state.

I wonder, if in 50 or 60 years when the ice caps melt and the world really goes to hell, are you going to look at your grandchildren and say this is the world you left them because you were too afraid to REALLY stand up and defend the planet?

[Bluenorthwest]

103. The violence prevents more people from joining.

And that is why these people do it. They are, in my opinion, not on the side of the protesters, but of the police. YOu speak of solidarity and of grandchildren, but also of an environment of riot which oh, so many people can not safely join. Children, older people, disabled people, none of us see 'rioting' and think, I need to get close to that. No, we think, well if that is what it is about, I simply can not do it. We think, this is for the young people.
You can not build a large movement by frightening the bulk of the people. And the bulk of the people are afraid of being in a riot, and rightfully so.

[Marr]

33. mispost

[sabrina 1]

45. Agents provocateurs. They are present every time the corporate

overlords see a populist uprising about to begin against their draconian and failed policies.

The French have gone out on strike, nationwide strikes. That is what we need to do here. No need to riot, just stop them from making money until they learn who they all work for.

The EU should be broken up and if the sentiment of the average European citizen is any judge, it will eventually fall apart. This Globalism, with the EU threatening leaders of Democratic Nations NOT to listen to their own peoople, has to go. It has failed.

Viva La France. They know how to protest Runaway Capitalism and we definitely could take a lesson from them, among others.

[Downtown Hound]

51. Strikes are good

And maybe there is no need to riot. I'm not saying we should all go out and riot tomorrow. I'm just saying that if there was a riot tomorrow and a bunch of banks got trashed, you wouldn't hear a single murmur of protest from me. I'm not going to condemn anybody for standing up to this grossly unjust financial system like that. That's just tying already oppressed people's hands even more.

And don't think for one minute that it's always agent provocateurs doing the damage. I've been to enough protests, including Black Bloc led breakaway marches before, to know that's horseshit. Yes, agent provocateurs do happen, but there is also a legitimate resistance movement of people that support and engage in vandalism against corporations. And they are real. And no amount of denial from liberals is going to change that.

[sabrina 1]

68. Strikes work a lot better than trashing property.

Anyone who does that is playing into the hands of the PTBs. The majority of people can understand a strike, but the will not support violence. And those who control things know that. It costs the banks nothing if their property is trashed, they are well covered by insurance. So it all that accomplishes is to lose support for what is otherwise a popular cause. And that is why they use Agents Provocateurs to do it. Any morons who do it for them, are just plain stupid as the only ones being hurt, are us.

But striking across the nation really hurts THEM. And that is what is needed, not childish, ineffective temper tantrums. I don't care about their property either, but neither do they, in fact they probably benefit from it.

[fasttense]

89. I've been saying this for years.

We need to get off our behinds and get in the streets. But NOT for one day only, but for days, and weeks and months. A one day protest is useless. The media ignores it and nothing comes of it. It carries no threat.

We need to get out in the streets day after day after day. Until that happens, nothing will change.

A one day protest (usually on Saturday) has no threat to it. But weeks of protests carry an implicit threat. No violence is necessary because simply protesting for weeks and weeks is a threat unto itself. It's threat that maybe the protester wont go back to sitting on their couches. It's a threat that if the protests go on too long, there might be rioting. It's a threat that the protesters might block and prevent the rich from doing business as usual. There is no need for violence because a huge, long term protest carries with it unspoken threats to the powers that be.

Until we get out and protest day after day after day, our corporate overlords will continue to destroy America and impoverish We the People. It is that simple.

[Enthusiast]

81. We could take a bunch of lessons.

And from many people around the world. There are great examples. One example, on this continent, is how the MIC and the capitalists systematically removed the native inhabitants from everything. Well, it is happening again, only this time it is happening to us.

[JDPriestly]

110. The French strikes tend to be violent.

But American marches tend to be peaceful. =

I don't think Americans feel comfortable with mobs that are violent. I generally don't demonstrate because I think it is a waste of time. No one pays any attention in our country. And violence tends to backfire. Besides, I just do not believe in violence as a means to make political progress. There is always a backlash and people including maybe my loved ones get hurt. It just isn't worth it. I think most Americans feel that way about violence.

But that is why our marches tend to be peaceful. Martin Luther King taught nonviolence but marched. That is our tradition. The French have a very different tradition.

[krabigirl]

25. It's true, even with no broken windows involved..people laugh at protestors.

[Selatius]

28. They'll shut up when the bank takes their house or farm away. Or when they get laid-off.

But by then it's too late. The whole point was to prevent that from happening.

[Downtown Hound]

52. I hate to break it to you, but people laugh at the peaceful protesters

They don't laugh at the violent ones. They may hate them, they may fear them, they may fight them, but they don't laugh at them.

[Scruffy1]

47. Result of years of brainwashing

But I don't think the younger generation is buying this hippy bullshit "that if just love them"

[Odin2005]

65. we have MSM propaganda and police posing as anarchists to thank for that.

Remember Seattle in 1999?

[JNelson6563]

11. We have no solidarity

Just look around DU where we supposedly have much in common. Many here spend countless hours doing all they can to divide us. Magnify those efforts and you've got the corporate media. We are divided over so many things that we completely lose sight of all that we have in common, therefore we will never work together to reach common goals. Voila! The oligarchs win. Again.

But go ahead DU, do spend another day quibbling over minor or non-existent differences, helping to guarantee we'll continue to fall behind on so many levels.

Julie

[fascisthunter]

13. I Do Respect the Passion of Their Citizens

they truly do keep their government more in check than we do here.

[bobbolink]

21. "The government should be afraid of the citizens, not the other way around."

[Selatius]

18. There's no sense of community. Our entire infrastructure encourages this feeling.

At least with mass transit you know you're not alone and not simply staring at cars all day when driving to and from work; you're sitting next to other people, neighbors and friends. Even the lay-out of typical sub-divisions reinforces the isolation; there's no town center and fairly rarely a small park in the sub-division for people to gather around. This is why direct action doesn't really work. Maybe if you lived in a town engineered around people instead of cars, you'd see more action, such as towns built before cars were popular. In many old pictures you used to see rails on the road for street trolleys. The auto companies removed them to replace them with cars for greater profit.

[Hannah Bell]

32. & that's no accident. +100.

[Enthusiast]

82. But but but,

the cost of the infrastructure of mass transit might cut down on the MIC. We can't have that!

[harun]

95. There is a reason Republican's use "wedge" issues. They have to keep the middle

class divided for them to maintain the upper hand.

[harmonicon]

98. You said it so that I don't have to; thank you.

I'm amazed when I read people on here write, "take to the streets". My question is always, "what streets?" People in the US don't even know their neighbours, and if they did and decided to march in the streets, what would happen? Who would see them? Taking to the streets doesn't matter much when you have to drive to streets in order to take to them and then drive back home at night.

[Blue_Tires]

113. excellent point...

[krabigirl]

22. I don't think it will ever happen. I pretty much give up :(

[prolesunited]

24. Ghandi and King changed the world

without resorting to violence.

You are no better than the teabaggers advocating violence as a solution.

[krabigirl]

26. my point proven. People in the USA think protestors are nuts.

Which is also why no one protests the increasing police state, endless wars in our name (well, not anymore..), nude o scopes, anything. Because people who protest are "violent."

[prolesunited]

29. I strongly believe in protests,

participated in many of them as a matter of fact and even organized DUers in D.C. Civil disobedience is a very powerful tool. But the emphasis is on CIVIL.

Think of the iconic images of movements. Rows of people sitting silently in handcuffs. A face grimacing, body tightening as its blasted by water cannons. Monks walking en masse through the streets of Myanmar. A lone dissident facing a tank in Tienanmen Square. These are the images that move men's hearts and a nation to action.

What I see in France and being advocated here is tearing shit up in a fit of rage. That is what I am disagreeing with. Think about the Dem convention in '68. What did that accomplish? It scared the shit out of a bunch of people who were or could have been allies.

You don't win with more fear, more hate. You just create more fear, more hate.

[laundry_queen]

59. Yes.

Americans have become 'good Germans'. And not by accident.

[Enthusiast]

83. You nailed it.

They accomplish this goal in several key ways. One way was 911 and the military response to it. We could have accomplished far more without the stupid cowboy posturing by the 'dumb administration'.

[SocialistLez]

67. I LOVE protestors!! Even if I disagree with them, at least they have the courage

to stand up for what they believe in.

[Downtown Hound]

35. Did they really?

Gandhi and King got fame and attention because the government was willing to deal with them because they were non-threatening. But there were other resistance groups, Malcolm X and the Black Panthers in the U.S. and plenty of other ones in India as well. Their violence forced the governments to deal with the non-violent movements because they were non-threatening.

Non-violence is a valuable tool and I have nothing against it and fully support it. That doesn't mean violent protesters contribute nothing, nor does it mean that violence is never justified.

[prolesunited]

36. We'll never agree

Detente

[Marr]

38. I couldn't agree more. It's a huge taboo, but it's a fact, IMHO.

People like Ghandi and MLK eventually became the voices that the powers that be compromised with, because they were the voices of moderation.

Ghandi himself even said that violence was superior to inaction, but (politically astute man that he was) encouraged people not to take that course and join his movement instead. Still, in a sense he needed that violence-- or at least the credible threat of it-- to make his own movement something to be bargained with instead of ignored.

Of course, the only thing we hear generations later is how these peaceful pacifists just did it on their own. People like Malcolm X, if they're mentioned at all, are spoken about as the less-enlightened mirror image of the Great Man, who's tactics were eventually proven wrong. The message we hear now-- especially from liberals, sad to say, is that the best thing is to just be calm and polite, to carry another clever sign at another useless parade, and talk and talk and talk.

It's sad, but hardly surprising.

[Downtown Hound]

43. The greatest analogy I've ever heard about violence and non-violence:

If aliens landed tomorrow and started poisoning our water, polluting out air to the point where it would fundamentally alter life on our planet, killing people, stripping them of their rights, incarcerating them with no trial, would you resist?

Most people would answer yes. Now replace aliens with corporations, and all of a sudden, people balk at the idea of violent resistance.

I'm not automatically advocating violence. In fact, I really hate violence. But people have got to stop looking at the situation as good protester vs. bad protester. We're all on the same side here and we all want the same thing. And the corporations have fucked us over so royally that we have EVERY right to resist, in more ways than one.

[backscatter712]

54. It's government and corporate co-optation of Gandhi's and MLK's message.

The real message was "Deal with us, we're non-violent, but if you don't deal with us, you'll deal with rioters and bombers."

The government and the corporatists want you to believe that non-violence will work in the absence of the threat of violence.

It won't.

The powerful will just laugh at the antics of Code Pink and the like. Non-violence and pure pacifism gets you nowhere.

To obtain power to make change, we have to first obtain the power to coerce.

[blindpig]

39. Yep

Ya don't go into a struggle like this with one hand tied behind yer back. You can bet your bippy that the capitalists ain't pacifists, they just want us to be pacifists.

[Selatius]

46. Peaceful protests are ineffective without the credible threat of violence thereafter.

It's one thing for people to protest against a perceived injustice, but for them to go out and protest and then threaten violence if their demands are not met is an entirely different force altogether. It's the reason why the slogan "No Justice, No Peace" got so much traction and still holds weight almost 40 years later. If their demands were not met, there would've been negative consequences.

I don't condone violence per se or advocate it as a first solution, but sometimes the people who hold the power leave no other credible option on the table.

[TonyMontana]

53. No violence. Just protesting.

In fact I bolded the part of one of the articles in the OP to emphasize that the vast majority of the French are protesting PEACEFULLY.

But they're not going home after a day either.

[backscatter712]

56. No _PHYSICAL_ violence...

Plenty of economic violence though. They've shut down the entire country. Businesses that have bills to pay have got to do without eight days of revenue now. Airports are in danger of shutting down, the highways are already shut down. Trash is piling up in the streets.

This is economic coercion. And good for the French people for doing it.

We MUST learn how to coerce, and we must learn to be willing to coerce if we're going to get anywhere.

[glowing]

31. Think about the size of France.. now think of the size of the USA...

little bit diff... We would be better off sitting in our homes and not moving... Or not paying our bills for a couple of months.

[Marr]

34. They have an actual media in France.

The average French citizen can pick up a newspaper and get a fairly untainted picture of what's happening in their country, in the EU, and in the world. Media in the US is the voice of capital, period. The big outlets are all owned by conglomerates and news is almost completely restricted to the happenings inside the United States. The average person in the US only ever hears "the world according to GE".

[Enthusiast]

84. Excellent point, Marr.

This is one of our greatest challenges.

[Jim_Shorts]

37. DEAD ON TONY

THIS IS THE THING WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT but what do have ? 39 rec's

We as a nation have been cowed! I don't know how it happened. I read one article that said the powers in charge were so successful at putting down the anti-war demonstrations of the 60's that we just stopped fighting. I would love to hear any one's ideas on how we became so pacified as a people. We are going to sleep our way to the end of this country.

[moondust]

42. Four dead in Ohio didn't help matters.

It had a chilling effect.

The fact that police departments across the country have armed themselves to the hilt over the past few decades probably doesn't help matters either.

[moondust]

41. I'm curious to see what happens in the U.K.

After the severe austerity edict yesterday.

Today I read that Google is avoiding billions in taxes along with a lot of other corporations through offshore banking tricks. If corporations were simply paying their taxes perhaps severe austerity measures wouldn't be necessary. (Disclaimer: I don't know to what extent, if any, severe austerity measures in the U.K. and France and elsewhere are actually necessary.)

[WillyT]

44. HUGE K & R !!!

:patriot:

:kick:

[RealisticDem44]

48. Yep. We need to hold our politicians' feet to the fire.

And that can be a real fire.

[Quantess]

76. LOL. Let's literally hold their feet to the fire!

Welcome to DU! :)

[RagAss]

49. Us?? .... HAHAHHAHAHAAAAa

[and-justice-for-all]

50. We need change that happens so fast, we all end up with whiplash..nt

[dimbear]

55. One of those little convulsions worked out for us.

The French wanted 'liberte' and ended up with Napoleon. We ended up with the Louisiana Purchase, quite a nice bargain at the price.

[AndrewP]

60. I love France and the French

Always have, always will. Bless their efforts for liberty and freedom.

[Pacifist Patriot]

61. I've been following this on BBC World Service radio and repeatedly thought...

this is a great illustration of the difference between Americans and other countries. We are definitely far too complacent.

As for their cause, I have to say I admire the activism, but think the French need to join the 21st century. Flipping out over raising the retirement age from 60 to 62 when the average life expectancy has increased something like an additional six months each year for the past decade is a bit self-indulgent. Good grief, we're sitting on a national retirement age of 65 and people are still, on average, enjoying a much longer retirement than one generation previous. Only France and Greece still have retirement ages as young as 60 in Europe. Hasn't anyone told them 60 is the new 50? ;-)

[truedelphi]

78. I get what you are saying, but they are smart enough in France to draw the line

In the sand way too soon, rather than way too late.

Here people won't realize what is afoot until we are all in debtor's prison or worse. We ain't doing a damn thing to protest the overbearing non stop message of the Corporate owned Media - the rich need more, and the poor need less, because the poor and the middle class just are not worth one single cent!

[Pacifist Patriot]

92. I don't disagree with you.

I personally think 62 is a reasonable retirement age, but give the French credit for their mobilization. They are doing something I could not imagine Americans doing. We seem prepared to bond in a common defense, but lack the drive to bond for a common good.

[Enthusiast]

85. If they did as you advocate

their citizens would soon be looking at the U.S. retirement age of 67, or higher at 70, as Boner has proposed.

[Pacifist Patriot]

90. Hence the emoticon.

[Enthusiast]

102. Sorry, I misunderstood. nt

[harmonicon]

101. Give an inch and they'll take a mile.

This isn't really about economics. This is what the right wants all over the world despite what state the economy is in. This is why you have Tories in England cheering vast budget cuts which they're only able to push through with the economy as an excuse. There is enough productivity in the world for everyone to live a decent life and retire with a pension. The only reason that it doesn't happen is because of the greed of those at the top.

[blindpig]

111. Not for all of us.

Particularly those who have had a hard lot, a life of physical labor. A lot of us won't make it past 70. Self-indulgent? What is life for?

Longevity is partially a function of one's income level. This crap is reactionary in the extreme.

[Pacifist Patriot]

112. I was thinking about this this morning.

I have wondered why retirement ages weren't bracketed by industry / income level. i.e. somewhat like air traffic controllers having a different retirement threshold.

Please see my responses to the others. My answer was mostly tongue in cheek (hence the emoticon). I do feel 62 is a reasonable retirement age (for most people, with exceptions obviously), but am in full sympathy with the French activism.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[datasuspect]

64. hang them with their $200 neckties and $100 panythose

[Odin2005]

66. +1

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. The last one was in 1950

That's not a coincidence.

It will happen and it will shock and surprise. I just don't know when.

We have some glimmers of a wake up, alas the msm ain't gonna cover it. They never have, and they're not 'bout to start.

[LongTomH]

70. Aux Armes, Citoyens!

The Marseilles (sung by Mileille Mathieu)

[L0oniX]

71. K & R ...reminds me of what Howard Zinn said about getting things changed, but...

go ahead and keep believing that voting will get us out of trouble and solve problems.

[donheld]

72. Exactly right.

People need to turn off their TeeVee's and get in the streets.

[mudplanet]

73. I agree. Why should those in power change anything unless it becomes

damned inconvenient or expensive NOT to.

It's a lesson unions learned long ago. The rich don't agree to change because "it's the right thing to do," they only agree to change when they're forced to.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. And have forgotten

It sickens me how ahem...conservative our unions have become. The leadership, but...

[mudplanet]

75. I think the conservative politics of our unions, for the most part, are a reflection of our culture.

We need a lot more Hell No and a lot less "well, ok, if you say we have to."

A functioning Justice Dept. would be helpful, too. Ever since Meese it has become a joke.

[Golden Raisin]

79. Agreed. Don't hold your breath.

[canetoad]

80. I generally read all the 'in between' posts in a thread

This time, I'm skipping straight to the OP.

America is too fractured, polarized and ...GULLIBLE... a society to take protesting against their governing regime seriously.

The qualities that made America great have risen up and bit them on the bum. Free speech, gun rights, autonomy of the States - these are the contentious issues in internal politics. These are what weakens America as a country. For some reason, a goodly portion of the population defends them to the exclusion of reason and logic.

No other ccivilised ountry would allow Fred Phelps to spread his hatred. No other first world country allows shooting in self defence. No sensible, unified country has the mish-mash of contradictory state and federal laws the USA has.

Americans expend their time and energy fighting each other. It is no surprise that other nations can present a unified front when America can not.

[Azathoth]

86. Wow.

No other ccivilised ountry would allow Fred Phelps to spread his hatred.

Then they aren't as civilized as they would like to believe, and that's an objective fact. The cure for hatred is truth and enlightenment, not censorship. A civilized society is one that can listen to wrong ideas and reject them. If you have to suppress those ideas and resort to censorship, you've already lost.

No other first world country allows shooting in self defence.

Then they're proud deniers of an intrinsic natural right, just like North Korea. The right to self-defense is absolute. Even Hobbes acknowledged that.

No sensible, unified country has the mish-mash of contradictory state and federal laws the USA has.

A) Bullshit.

B) Federal laws supersede state laws. Always have, always will. There is no contradiction.

C) Every country has certain vestigial idiosyncrasies and peculiarities in its laws and governmental structure. As an Australian, you should be reminded of this every time
you have to take a knee and acknowledge Queen Elizabeth as your Queen.

[Jim Sagle]

88. We’ll have trouble staging anything like a national strike in America.

Unionism has been crippled along with its base, the manufacturing sector. And the elite intend to keep it that way. As Jagoff Joe Biden said, the jobs are not coming back.

I envision passive resistance such as developing localism and a consumer/debtor strike. I have no feel for how effective this will be.

[Hekate]

91. We are not France. We have different traditions. We have a different mindset. But more importantly

... the average American is so pathetically uneducated and so willing to swallow the propaganda that passes for news here, that said average Joe thinks we are in every way superior to the French. They have socialism and higher taxes, yanno.

The fact that their taxes pay for services we can't even imagine having here passes right over Average Joe's head; sneering that the French are "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" is so much more satisfying than actually knowing what you are talking about.

The sustained civil unrest during the Vietnam war and various race riots of the 1960s were, imo, anomalies in this country. Television and newspapers reported on these events, and really large numbers of citizens were pissed off over the Draft and various social injustices.

Not so today. I participated in several massive protests in D.C. during the Bush Regime, and am unlikely to do so again. They were hugely underreported, and there was not enough follow-through on the part of the participants. I was very involved closer to home, and was able to get a sense that we could effect change here.

The French have exciting protests regarding the news of the day, but Americans are very slow on the uptake. It's just not us, apparently.

Hekate

[totodeinhere]

93. Yet if Glenn BecKKK puts together a small rally in DC, the media are all over that. n/t

[AngryAmish]

96. Riots almost always turn out well in the states

[WinkyDink]

97. We would fight EACH OTHER before we would rise up as one.

[JDPriestly]

107. The problem is that we are a huge country.

In addition, we are very divided by the issues. Many of the people who will lose the most when our government imposes austerity measures are avid Fox News viewers who vote conservative. Yes they are voting against their interests. But they like to think that they share the interests of the wealthy. It's just kind of a fantasy that many Americans have adopted in order to keep them going in their lives. If they really faced their reality -- the reality that they will never pay off their loans, that they will never get that raise they deserve, that they cannot possibly save enough for retirement on their income -- they would dig a hole and lie in it.

Americans are perpetually optimistic even when optimism is not warranted by the facts.

[bobbolink]

133. No, that is not the problem. The problem is our damned "Rugged Individualism" that we cling to,

which leads to a lack of community spirit.

[Subdivisions]

115. Americans are fat-assed, lilly-livered, over-stimulated, over-entertained

COWARDS too absorbed in their own self-interests to stage a scene like the very brave and honorable people of France.

[blindpig]

116. I don't have such a low opinion.

There are a lot of factors involved, we are the most propagandized people in history, every aspect of our lives are saturated, education, entertainment, the press. The nonsense of American Exceptionalism is the state religion. We are endlessly diverted. Nonetheless reality is creeping in, as Capital seeks profit ever more desperately everyone and everything is put to the wall.We are not that different from the French, as frustrating as it is now things could change very quickly, the French were moribund two years ago, look at them now. We do have a history, remembering it would be a good first step.

[walldude]

123. Taking to the streets will not help. We live in a near police state

The Patriot Act made sure of that. And believe me they will jump on the chance to call any mass protests or riots a "terrorist act". What we need is a National Strike. The deeper issue is that the "masters" those that control politics and corporations and all the money, are actually pretty stupid. They know how to manipulate, how to lie, cheat, steal, and how to scam. They know greed and money. What they don't know how to do is cook a fucking meal, fix a flat tire, or get the fucking clock on their DVD player to stop flashing 12:00... They need us. They just don't realize how much.

Problem is there is no way to do this without hurting many people who need help. It would take a couple weeks before things go bad enough that the "Masters" would take notice. Most people live paycheck to pay check and can't survive a couple days without work let alone a couple weeks.

[NNN0LHI]

126. Yea, everyone can drive their imported cars to the riots to protest lack of jobs

:rofl:

[lovuian]

127. Americans need to have a National Strike

and demand the rights of the worker
for health care

Shut down this government

and France has 70% support by its people

they know what is going on

[area51]

131. Kick n/t