> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/644050.html
> By Nehemia Strasler, Haaretz Correspondent
> His remarks to date indicate that Peretz is a loyal and consistent
> representative of the old-style class warfare socialism reminiscent of
> the 19th century. He is a believer in a centralized economy, big
> government, and in the economics of nationalization.
WS: Wow! This makes one nostalgic, almost tearful, indeed. My only problem is that if Mr. Peretz seriously tried that route, the people who call themselves the market would "make the economy scream."
Chris
> As you know the Polish government likes to engage in
> anti-Russian rhetoric a great deal (maybe my
> perception is exaggerated due to my situation). I
> remember at one point Putin said something to the
> effect that "maybe they should spend their time
> addressing their own problems, they've got a 20%
> unemployment rate over there."
WS: Evidently, they must be running out of scapegoats to divert attention from their problems - unemployment, crime, and corruption. Jew-bashing is no longer kosher, because the EU would simply tell them to shut up, so the only one they have left is that old barbarian at the Europe's gate.
Frankly, Poland is more alienating than the US - their reactionary opinions, crass materialism, armchair belligerence, in-your-face-Catholicism and the pope cult are difficult to stomach. I even stopped talking to my own daughter who lives there. At least in the US one can find refuge from that crap on the coasts - no such refuge exists in Poland.
Thomas:
> I dont think this phenomenon can be attributed to the
> fact that there is a stronger Left in France. In
> fact, the organized Left (even the far-Left) seems to
> have had little or no influence on the recent rioting.
> The actors in the French rioters are fresh on the
> political scene.
>
> Is it that the level of frustration is higher? Is it
> that the US system has been dealing with this longer
> and is more sophisticated in co-opting, funneling such
> anger?
>
The very fact that you pose such questions implies that your knowledge of the subject matter is rather limited - which is also true of most of us here, to be sure. Yet you seem to have a prior on this - that is a political protest act rather than, say, an opportunistic copy-cat behavior. Why such prejudice? Why not keeping an open mind for all possible explanation?
When I see a bunch of people destroying other people's property and livelihood to vent their frustrations and "send a message," the first thing that comes to my mind is that they are only a notch above terrorists who take other people's lives to that end. Or those macho guys who beat up their wives or girlfriends, or for that matter "go postal" to vent their unhappiness with the way things are going for them.
So I find it a bit disingenuous when people on this side of the pond sit in the safety of their suburban or campus residences and make assumptions about people who destroy other people's property. Would you be making the same assumptions if your car or apartment were burned by a mob? Or if that old guy who was beaten to death trying to protect his property was your father?
I know enough about human behavior to understand that mobs and riots beget violence - even among otherwise non-violent people. Been there done that. So I am rather reluctant to attribute any particular motive to rioting throng - aware that different people may be doing what they are doing for different reasons, or no reason other than being caught in a violent situation. For example, in one demo I attended a car driven by a white middle age guy plowed into a crowd injuring a protester. The throng perceived it as an act of aggression and smashed the thing into pieces. I tried to contribute to the smashing but did not get close enough - others were having a really good time.
I am a non-violent person and so were other protesters, after all, it was an anti-war rally. Yet I was ready to engage in a violent act simply because others around me did the same thing. I did not even know why the incident happened, perhaps it was an act of aggression, or perhaps an accident, or perhaps the guy just snapped, trying to get home from work and being trapped by a throng. All I knew that it was a demo and people were smashing a car. It is safe to assume that most other pacifists in that throng were pretty much in the same position. Clearly they were drawn into a violent confrontation despite their own intention, values and beliefs, simply because of the dynamics of the interaction. This is, after all, what social science, such as the Stanford Prison Experiment http://www.prisonexp.org/ tells us.
What I find far more difficult to accept, however, is the 'armchair warrior' behavior - folks who observe violent action from a safe distance, project their own feelings and motives into at, and then go on to condone and justify it. I think Hitchens does that with the Iraq war, and so do many people participating in "bombing parties" organized by local bars when the war broke out. I also think that people who cheerlead riots, either those in France or elsewhere, solely based on their ideological priors, engage in the same kind of behavior. However, unlike the rioters themselves, who can legitimately claim to be "drawn" into action by the nature of the interaction, these 'armchair warriors' cannot claim such an excuse.
Please do not interpret this as an ad hominem attack - I really do not know what you think and if this is a fair representation of your intentions (I hope not). I am simply using an idea that you happened to post as an opportunity to make a few comments on the general state of political discourse which I find unacceptable - nothing personal. I would also like to add that 15 or so years ago, when I was still living in Santa Cruz, CA I would probably cheerlead riots, gangs, theft and vandalism as acts of rebellion against the bourgeois social order. However, after living for 13 years in Baltimore I know better than that.
Wojtek