FRANCE: WHY THE STUDENTS WON

[dogday]

This morning in Paris, the conservative government of President Jacques Chirac (left, with Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin behind him) caved in and announced that the special labor contract for under-26 workers that had sent millions of students and union members into the streets in protest was dead. The "CPE" (Contrat Premier Embauche or first-job contract) will be "replaced" by a new plan to provide subsidies to employers to encourage the hiring of young people in a country where youth unemployment is at 24% (and even higher -- upwards of 50% -- in the ghettos.)

What was behind this profound social crisis that had shaken France (where I lived for a decade) for over two months?

As usual, the U.S. press understood little about the conflict. Over and over again, one heard the students referred to by TV's bubbleheads (from CBS to CNN) as "reactionaries" because they opposed the new law. But what the CPE law had done was to eliminate for under-26 workers the rights previously guaranteed to all French workers not to be fired without cause. Under the CPE, younger workers could be canned at any moment from the moment of their hiring up the two years' duration of these youth employment contracts without the employers' being required to justify the firing, if the fired worker chose to haul the employer before labor tribunals. Calling the student-union defense of preserving acquired workers' rights "reactionary" is equivalent to labeling as "reactionary" any American who wants to preserve the Social Security system. It is a perversion of language -- for it was the CPE law itself which was quite reactionary.

The good folks at FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) have released an excellent study of conservative media bias in US media during coverage of the French crisis. And U.S. TV kept showing pictures of the rioting by a handful of delinquents from the ghettos who attached themselves to the huge peaceful demonstrations -- even though they represtned only a few hundred people, compared to the upwards of 2 million students and workers who poured into the streets of 150 French cities and towns on two occasions in the last two weeks. (Photo upper right, anti-CPE demonstrators fill the streets of Marseille.)

http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2006/04/france_why_the_.html

[Warpy]

1. The students won because they were joined by other ages

Labor knows they're in peril whenever labor rights for one age group are eroded in any way. Labor law has to apply to all.

Older workers knew full well they'd be spurned in favor of a younger worker who could be discharged at will and without cause should they need to look for new employment. This wasn't just a youth issue. It affected all labor.

[Kagemusha]

2. While the writer has a point, the students won 'cause Chirac's weak.

And the rest is details.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. Chirac's weak because students and labor organized

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. You make it as though Chirac's weakness is some metaphysical quality, rather than a result of concerted political organization! :rofl:

[Kagemusha]

14. Not metaphysical quality. Personal quality. He has no backbone.

And I'd advise against getting all power-drunk. Though in France it's normal for unions and students to get that way. That's why France buries its problems rather than solves them.

To paraphrase from one writer commenting on the situation, Chirac doesn't believe in very much besides his own popularity ratings. That's why he will leave no legacy except having existed in his post all this time.

[NNN0LHI]

18. More like the students won because Chirac is an asshole n/t

[Kagemusha]

20. Well I'm hardly claiming Chirac *isn't*.

also n/t

[Atman]

3. Mass protests DO work. So why aren't Americans in the streets?

Sacré bleu!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. 500,000 in LA? 250,000 in texas? 60,000 in CHicago?

who says people aren't marching.
It all connects. When we realize that this is our chance - to fix health care, taxes, and more, we will take over this country.

[Atman]

13. I'm dubious about these immigration marches

We can't get Americans out in those numbers to protest the atrocity that is the Bush Administration, but millions are turning out to protest IMMIGRATION REFORM? Something is stinky.

When there are mass simulateous protests against BushCo's war -- and regime in general -- then I'll buy it. But something just doesn't sit right with me. With everything Bush has done, is planning to do, THIS is what gets millions into the streets? I dunno.

[leftstreet]

16. Latino radio, La Raza, Catholic church = organizing since December

The immigration reform protests have been in the works since Sensenbrenner's bill passed in Dec 05.

[NNN0LHI]

19. Dubious?

If someone wanted to declare you and your kids felons wouldn't you be in the streets too?

Don

[Atman]

24. I'm not sure how to properly express myself on this one

Yes, sure I'd be out in the streets.

But the numbers...the sheer numbers of the protests.

I admit, I can't wrap my head around what BushCo would gain by "helping out" in organizing, but maybe I'm just missing something. I see many more serious problems we've tried to organize marches against, and nothing happens. Or, at least, we get no press coverage. Maybe the immigrants just aren't as complacent as we are, maybe they realize they ARE fighting for their freedom, whereas Americans are just dumbasses and don't care whether or not the government fucks them.

I don't have any answers, not even hypotheses. I'm not sure what is going on. All I know is that it should be US out there marching. In concert with them. As adjunct protests, if need be. Something. Anything. But the immigrant protest marches are getting all the airplay, for whatever reason, as the constitution is shredded before our eyes and lazy fat America sits back and does nothing.

Please, don't flame me...I admit, I'm not even sure what the hell I'm talking about. Just read the two paragraphs above and try to understand; I don't know why these million people care about their freedom, and we don't.

[NNN0LHI]

28. I think you may be on to something here

>>>Maybe the immigrants just aren't as complacent as we are, maybe they realize they ARE fighting for their freedom, whereas Americans are just dumbasses and don't care whether or the government fucks them.<<<

Americans are worried about who is going to win the next American Idol contest or the next baseball game.

These people are fighting for their lives.

I can easily understand why they are in the streets and we are not.

No flames. You are one of my favorite posters around here. Take care and see you later.

Don

[Nederland]

25. It's simple

Immigration reform affects them personally. The closes thing Bush has done to affect people personally is the Iraq war. And quite frankly, unless you have a family member in Iraq the war means virtually nothing. Even if you do have a family member in Iraq, you might be in favor of the war--many many military families are. All the other shit Bush has pulled: tax cuts, wiretaps, plamegate, abrahamov, etc. is way too abstract to get people in the streets.

Immigration reform is another thing entirely. You are basically telling millions of people that you are taking away their jobs, kicking them out of the country and uprooting their families. THAT is the kind of thing that gets people in the streets in a heartbeat.

[Warpy]

7. Yeah, over a million pissed off women in Washington

sure affected Stupid's choice of USSC justices, didn't they? They sure managed to get the Democrats to stand up for them, didn't they?

Remember, those protests in France turned ugly. They weren't that peaceful.

I'm beginning to think only getting smacked with a 2x4 between the eyes gets the attention of elected politicians who spend all their time fundraising or grandstanding. Violent protests seem to be one of the types of lumber.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. Undoubtedly true.

One terrorist can easily attract far, far more attention for their cause than a hundred thousand peaceful, law abiding protestors, and attracting attention to an issue is a necessary first step to getting it changed.

One of the reasons I think terrorism is so immoral is because, quite apart from ruining people's lives directly, it works; this subverts the democratic process and so can do harm indirectly, too.

[dogday]

17. The shootings at Kent State made the difference

in the sixties.. It is a shame it takes an act of violence to make the change.. Then again, look at 9/11, another act of violence which constituted much change in this country.....

[Devlzown]

11. Bravo, France!

Now that's democracy in action.:applause:

[Nederland]

22. Because Americans aren't French

They has different attitudes than the French people do toward government and its role in everyday life. French people have been brought up with the ideal that it is the government's role to take care of the people from cradle to grave. American's do not share this idea and so they don't expect as much from government. Time will tell which ideal works best.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. a good friend lives in Paris.

he confirmed the lack of good reporting here and answered a bunch of questions.
At the present, about half of French grads are contract workers, to begin with. They do not have the no fire jobs, nor other protections. What this legislation does is to attack some of the few protections that others do not have. Especially with respect to wages and other protections.
But of course, the US media could not be bothered to research the actual story.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. Nor could many DUers

Who carry water for the most outrageous capitalist antics on a regular basis, and call it "economic growth" and "freedom," in the cynical jargon of their Masters.

[Yupster]

27. That was my question

what does a business do if it sees a falloff in business, or if it's seasonal.

How can a business reduce its workforce or increase it temporarily?

Is that where these contract workers would come in?

[Mass]

10. Excellent analysis

I have been shocked by the number of BS the US media have been reporting on this issue.

Because I was born in France and am more sensitive to what happens there and more able to see the total discrepancy between what the media were reporting in this country and what was happening over there, I was totally shocked by the lack of understanding most reporters in the MSM showed. Not only did they called the protesters reactionnary, but some even tried to say that the reform would help kids in the cities to find a job (though they were never able to give a good reason).

Sadly, it is not the first time I notice this lack of understanding (or this bias more probably). It occured during the protests and riots last fall, for example.

The main question is whether what the media report on other countries is much more accurate. How can we judge the validity of the claims concerning Hugo Chavez, Iran, Iraq, ... when they come from media who cant describe correctly something happening in a country not that different from the US.

[Kagemusha]

15. The "good reason" has been much reported over the years.

It's hard to at all be aware of economic issues and not be aware of the theory of loosening overly tight labor markets leading directly to more jobs. This is, furthermore, at the heart of the "Third Way" movement (i.e. Tony Blair, Gerhardt Schroeder) and is hardly some big secret that the mainstream media is keeping from us. I'm no fan of sloppy reporting because it keeps casual readers very ignorant but, it's very, very hard for me to believe that just because the media didn't bother restating well known arguments, that amounts to no "good reason" having ever existed in the first place. That's just silliness.

Now whether the argument is true is a totally different story. Not one I'm inclined to get into personally either. I'd rather someone who has facts to argue the point, not just recite articles of faith. I have neither the faith nor hard, verifiable facts to argue the issue. But I can't in good conscience act as if the arguments don't exist.

Edit: I wouldn't call this a complete argument, more like ancedotal evidence being listed, but this is a quick read at least mentioning the "other side": http://business.guardian.co.uk/economicdispatch/story/0,,1751042,00.html

[Nederland]

32. Nice article (nt)

[bloom]

12. People who listen to the likes of Democracy Now!

would know what was going on. Esp. when it comes to issues involved in protests.

People who are depending on CNN or some such - probably do not.

[Nederland]

21. The Students won, but France lost

The government tried to implement to tiniest of reforms in an effort to reduce youth unemployment, and the net result was huge protests. I'm am curious, do these protesters have a counter plan? Do they have a proposal to reduce the number of unemployed under age 30? If so, I'd love to hear it, and more importantly love to see it implemented and see if it works. The bottom line on what happened in France over the past few weeks is this: France lost. It will now continue the downward economic course it has been on for 30 years and is rapidly heading for international irrelevance.

Flame on, I know all you good DU economic leftists out there will...

[Mass]

23. Actually, the socialists do and youth unemployment was much lower

when they were in power.

But how would you know? You take what the MSM in this country said as Gospel.

[Nederland]

26. Like I said

Time will tell. Chirac will likely lose the next election and then he left can take a crack at the country's problems. I wait eagerly to see if they have the solution to France's unsustainable economic policies. I suspect not, as all they have is the worn out rhetoric of 19th century socialism, but perhaps I will be proven wrong.

[Nye Bevan]

29. Perhaps they could reduce the work week from 35 to 17.5 hours?

Then twice as many people will be needed to do all of the available work! This should instantly cure the unemployment problem. And multinational companies will be clamoring to open factories in a country with such a well-rested and contented workforce.

[Nederland]

30. I assume you are being sarcastic

...but in this place I never know.

[Nye Bevan]

31. Yes, that was a little tongue in cheek

I love DU but there are certainly some posters here who would benefit from subscribing to the Economist.

[Mass]

33. and some may need some distance from the RW economical theories

you can read in the Economist.

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. LOL

Heaven forbid...being a "Democrat" is now about hanging out with Mr. Rubin at Citigroup, and getting the best rate through predatory lending. The Economist told me so...:rofl:

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. As opposed to the fabulous rhetoric of 21st century global capitalism

Which is a disaster everywhere, but oh my, that rhetoric!

Needless to say, the tired mottos of 19th century socialism should fall by the wayside. But, as that famous frenchman Gilles Deleuze once said, it is not whether to hope or fear, but the find new weapons. Certainly, various apologists for capitalist exploitation like to pretend that any opposition to its rule is "nostalgic," and "worn out," even if that opposition is new, and creative, and faces the ravages of the new order fully, and without romanticism. Any opposition is worn out 19th century opposition, for capitalist exploitation is the only world there is, amen....Capital loves me, this I know, because the Economist told me so...

[Nederland]

36. A disaster?

Compared to what, socialism? Please. Show me some evidence that demonstrates that socialist countries did better than capitalist countries over the past 50 years.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

37. No, compared to Western European social democracies

which achieved the best quality of life in any country, at any time of history.

Whether that is "socialism" or not seems to depend on what rhetorical club the righties choose to swing at the moment.

[Nederland]

38. Western Social Democracies

...are primarily capitalist countries, not socialist countries.

The reality is that neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism works. This is not a debatable point at this time, it is practically ancient history. The economically successful countries of the World (the G8) are all mixed economies with some socialist aspects but mostly capitalist aspects. The only real debate is what percentage of government ownership versus private ownership is ideal. In France, about 45% of the GDP is government. In the US, the number is around 20%. Where is the ideal? I guess it depends on which is more important to you, freedom or equality. I suspect the happy medium is somewhere between the two, but that's just my opinion.

My point I guess, is that countries that are primarily socialist (i.e., government ownership of the means of production exceeds private ownership) are never successful. Real success lies in taking the incredible productive qualities of capitalism and leveraging it to gain environmental and social protections.