Many media outlets regret that the Spirit of 1968 is lacking among today’s youth. I argue that leftism since 1968 is essentially a culture of death and moral turpitude. What is lacking today is coherent class analysis.
For the past few months, there have been major strikes in France’s SNCF railways. The Macron government wants to privatise the railway; French workers are resisting. French railways are among the achievements of post- 1945 France. The dirigiste economic model started under General Pétain and continued under his protegé and later rival Charles de Gaulle; it’s an inconvenient truth for many on the left. De Gaulle had also continued Pétain’s natalist policies. By 1968, a new generation wanted change but had no programme. American imperialism astutely resold capitalism to a new generation as sexual revolution and individualist emancipation.
In 1968, French students(most of whom were Jewish) staged a revolt, which brought down the Charles de Gaulle government. Some of the students, such as Daniel Cohn- Bendit, were in the pay of the CIA. The Americans wanted to introduce economic liberalisation in France and rebellious youth were their useful idiots. Cohn-Bendit became a star of the new libertarian left. As part of the social revolution, Cohn-Bendit defended sexually abusing children.
The 1968 revolt brought about major social changes in France. Henceforth women realised that they were ‘oppressed’ and needed to break the chains of patriarchy. Rearing children was only for losers. French women would henceforth control their birth rate, sleep with whomever they wanted; live out of wedlock, and eventually murder their own babies in their wombs. Bourgeois freedom doesn’t get any better than that!
Simon De Beauvoir wrote a book called ‘The Second Sex’ where she advocated not getting married, and not having children as the progressive option for women in the twentieth century. She led by example, having multiple relationships involving men and women and sometimes underage girls. She even signed a petition calling for the legalisation of child abuse: a true revolutionary progressive!
Simon Weil pushed abortion; it was her greatest contribution to French civilisation. Elizabeth Badinter said it was natural for women to want to have sex with their own children: another feminist revolutionary!
We started out talking about railway strikes and ended up in an abortion clinic full of paedophile feminists. What’s the connection? Western civilisation is on a railroad to hell, emotionally and intellectually. There is a common belief that being left-wing means standing up for the labourer against the capitalist. That is an extremely outmoded interpretation of what it means to be left-wing. Since 1968, being left-wing means all of the above; sexual perversion; misandry and infanticide. The 1968 revolt did have some positive aspects for the working class: they got a raise in the minimum wage. But those gains were sabotaged by the Rothschild Law which was passed in 1973, wrested financial sovereignty from the French economy, leading to a spiral of debt which has lasted to today.
Oh, I forgot to mention the environment. My God, the left love the environment! Why is the petty bourgeois leftist so obsessed with ecology? Because he hates mankind and so any theory which states that human activity is destroying nature attracts him, particularly if it is industrial activity.
One of France’s most famous leftists is a man called François Ruffin. He said recently that the deeper meaning of the railway strike is that the French people want something ‘else’. There is a desire for ‘something else’, ‘autre chose’, for something other than the current system. Now there’s a profound statement! The French people want something else! Perpend! Let’s close our eyes for a moment and imagine the something else! Did you catch a glimpse of that evanescent otherness, that radical alterity, that precious autre chose?
François Ruffin also said the problem was the French government was not doing enough to reduce the carbon emissions of the trains! Global warming! Contemporary leftists adore global warming theory; they will block their ears or punch you in the face or maybe even cry if you quote any of the extensive scientific literature which shows that it is pseudo-science on a colossal scale.
Ruffin said there was more need for ‘diversity’ at the SNCF too! Ah diversity! There are too many white people working in the railways. White people are becoming a problem; there are millions of them in Europe! We obviously need more diversity! I am led to believe that race does not matter any more. Why then are we told that we need more racial diversity? If race doesn’t matter, then racial diversity is neither a good nor a bad thing. If you want to understand the word guffaw, go to China and tell them there isn’t enough racial diversity there!
There is nothing the contemporary leftist hates more than being confronted with truths that deprive him of his specious moral ground. For in reality, the libertarian leftist is a nihilist and a fraud. He exists simply to occupy the space designed as ‘the Left’. He is prominently displayed on the window of capitalism’s clothes shop, and he never wears a tie; ties are bourgeois!
Something else but not socialism
It is true that the French people want something else; French women want real men. French men want real women. Children want real parents who put their future above their own petty desires and they want real educators in their schools to teach them how to read and write properly, not perverts who teach them how to sodomize their classmates.
French workers want quality jobs for French people. They want an end to mass immigration on behalf of oligarchs. They want an end to phoney leftism too. Pierre Laurent, the current Secretary-General of the French Communist Party, was interviewed recently on the radio. He was talking about a revivial of “Marxist” theory in the universities. Someone called in asking if he would explain the reasons for the fall of the USSR. He couldn’t answer the question. He said there was too much emphasis on production and a lack of democracy! Laurent clearly knows nothing about Marxism and nothing about the history of the USSR.
In his book, ‘Economic Problems of socialism in the USSR’ Joseph Stalin describes the errors of economists in his day who were advocating planning of the Soviet economy based on a bourgeois theory of value. Stalin pointed out that as capitalism is an ensemble of commodities, commodity production must be progressively phased out and replaced by product exchange. In order to achieve that, further centralisation of planning was needed and cooperatives would have to, therefore, become state enterprises.
The great Georgian philosopher pointed out that Soviet economists such as Iarochenko did not understand one of the key insights of Marxism; namely, that in a given stage of a society’s historical development, the forces of production outpace the relations of production. In other words, dialectical materialism holds that material, technological innovations exceed our capacity to manage them. So, for example, in today’s society, automation is replacing manual labour on a massive scale; yet because the relations of production are capitalist, we have mass unemployment on the one hand and an overworked labour force on the other.
This contradiction would be overcome under socialist relations of production where automation would be designed to liberate all workers from heavy or drudging labour. Stalin advocated reducing the Soviet working day to 3 or 4 hours, in order to enable workers to acquire new skills and professions. So, a carpenter, for example, could work in the morning and train to be an architect in the afternoon, thereby becoming better qualified to participate in the planning of construction projects, or he could simply decide to become an artist or a poet. The aim of socialism is to elevate man to the highest social and cultural level possible.
In Stalin’s day, socialism in the USSR was still under construction. Capitalist relations of production still existed in a limited form. Stalin warned that unless those relations were fully socialised, the Soviet economy would revert to capitalism.
Stalin’s arguments were ignored and capitalist relations of production were restored under Khrushchev. All the economic journals from the 1960s onward talk about ‘socialist profit’ and other nonsense. American economists in the 1970s noted that Soviet CEO’s could easily work in the United States – such was their expertise in making profits. What collapsed in 1991 was a corrupt state-capitalist federation where capitalists of the state nomenclature seized the opportunity provided by the failures of state-capitalism to impose neoliberal capitalism.
Anticommunists who claim that ‘communism doesn’t work’ or that communism is against democracy have never studied the subject in any depth. Communists are only against democracy in so far as it is a form of the state and communists want to do away with states. The goal of communism is human freedom; it is the ne plus ultra of humanism. It is only in so far that it is humanist that communism is doomed to be corrupted by capitalism and power. Christianity, however, teaches that the goal of human life from conception is the Beatific Vision, where the human soul is united with its creator in heaven. The Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to communism was not due to its desire to liberate workers but rather its humanism which is contrary to reason and faith. It is the one lesson Stalin, who was a brilliant biblical scholar, failed to learn in the seminary.
Ignoring Stalin’s warnings led to thirty years of catastrophic decline- culminating in queues outside shops for basic goods. As for democracy, Stalin’s attempts at democratic reform were also prevented by Khrushchev and the revisionists. Communism failed because there were too many Pierre Laurents in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
Pierre Laurent is not a communist, except in the most perverse sense of that term. Genuine French communists such as philosopher Gilbert Mury and journalist Patrick Kessel understood Marxist-Leninist theory and left the PCF in the 60s when it was clear that the leadership did not advocate socialism. Since then, the PCF has simply been a decorative feature of French political life; they occupy a space in the political theatre called communism but don’t advocate communism, except in the perverse form far-right intellectuals always understood by that term: a socially subversive theory which uses the working class as a tool in the interests of finance capital. The Left are the useful idiots of finance capitalists who are now advocating ‘communism’, that is to say, the abolition of private property for the masses and the centralisation of global power for the elites.
There will be plenty of diversity and ecology when the Paris Climate Accord becomes the basis of a world government. By then, life will have become so intolerable for the French worker, the ‘autre chose’ of today’s misery will seem like paradise. So, it doesn’t matter how long the strikes go on; they are programmed to fail because class enemies run the French labour movement; class enemies whose purpose is to divert and distract their captive audience with empty, meaningless and demoralising slogans such as “another world is possible”. Macron has the best ‘left-wing’ opposition money can buy: they want him to crush French workers just a little more with more immigration and carbon taxes. Left-wing other-worldism is, as old Lenin would say, an infantile disorder.
I think you meant to say ‘Simone Veil pushed for abortion’, not ‘Simone Weil…’ Is that right?
Could you please show me the extensive literature debunking global warming and specially why that literature is more reliable than the mainstream one in this case? I just want to know, because if you are right then we are in trouble, but if you are wrong then we are in huge trouble. Thanks.
Ok, I’ve looked up the man made global warming debunking literature myself, warm medieval period etc. I’m convinced now it’s a hoax, as you say. Took me a while, thought..