The Odéon-Théâtre de France, occupied by protestors for a month from May 1968
Fifty years ago this month, many millions of workers, students, and others uncategorised by history, came together to “shit the bed”. Such was the view of Charles de Gaulle, a man whose French presidency survived a general strike, and one whose talent for diminishing opposition survives to the present. By the end of May 1968, the General had amassed great support through his representation of protest: those who spoke were at once incontinent children to be pitied and “tyrants” to be feared.
A half-century later, Macron calls on this legacy, and workers who protest their conditions become “professional troublemakers” — again, privileged, powerful cynics who are also kids who crap the bed.
This describes the most prevalent legacy of Paris, 1968. Or, rather, the bifurcation of the moment into two legacies. There is that enduring and peculiar view of all unruly mass protest as the powerful work of Soviets, cf. Jordan Peterson. Then there is the record that appears sympathetic, but is ultimately crap-the-bed belittling. When we read so much about the “cultural” legacy of May 1968 and so little of the political legacy provided by the many who effectively shut down a nation state, we think about naïve kids.
It is true that May 1968 may be traced back to March 1968, the month in which students from a brand new suburban university campus became frustrated, inter alia, with life inside a building site. But, it’s no truer that the events of that year were any more Soviet-led — the popular graffito of May “all power to the imagination” was aimed at the French tankies of the time who sought “all power to the Soviets” — than it was led by students. Even the charismatic student leader Daniel Cohn-Bendit, known to the press of the West as “Red Danny”, sees the movement of which he, and so many Parisians, was a part as just one event inside a global complex of them.
The students, workers, families and migrants of Paris did not guilelessly soil themselves and leave nothing behind but a cultural turn, whose false recollection was Xeroxed this year at Paris Fashion Week: “Maria Grazia Chiuri, the first female designer of Christian Dior, opened Paris Fashion Week with a feminist bang on Tuesday with her 1968 inspired show.”
Paris is commonly revived by press as the precursor to the “pussy hat” protests of the present age. The repertoire of today’s Old New Left feminist protest has little more in common with May 1968 than its seeming sense of humour — although, I’d say that the situationist slogans of 50 years ago remain way funnier than “nasty Woman” T-shirts. Many in Paris developed a political consciousness within weeks, and this led to the paralysis of a nation. Many pussy hat wearers remain paralysed in the apolitical memory of groovy students who craved only cultural liberation. In fact, students were not only able to make concrete material demands, but looked far beyond their own class and identity groups to make demands for all.
The women who now march in pink hats have real grievances, of course. That they are unable to understand or act upon these grievances within the context of a nation-state, era or globalised economy is not a legacy of Paris. These protests have their basis in the same, far more successful revolution that produced Macron — a man, you may recall, who was “inspiring” to pussy-hat feminists for the advanced age of his bride.
Philosopher John Gray writes this month that Paris created the conditions for neoliberalism. It’s a more interesting take than the Paris Gave Us The Pussy Hat type, but is, in my view, diminishing in the bed-pooping style nonetheless. It is Gray’s view that the Paris rejection of social mores and gender norms not only facilitated but permitted the neoliberal tendency to mask the power of capital with an appearance of cultural tolerance.
I’d just say that it is the neoliberal tendency to mask the power of overtly anti-capitalist protest with false memories of horny students. Capitalism has shown no little talent for dressing up its failure as success with many countervailing acts, such as the neoliberal revolution. And our press is rather good at weaving a hostile moment of opposition to capitalism into a pussy hat.
Surely the events of May 68 can be traced back further than March 68. The French colonial wars in Vietnam and Algerian fractured French society and the domination of the “left” by the French communist party. The politicization of students had begun much earlier than 68, shaped by the alliance of forces protesting against the Vietnam war and for some probably much earlier in the aftermath of the Algerian War of Independence. The broad Left of Marxists, Socialists and Anarchists was active in many French universities, well before March 68. The legacy of 68 is of far less importance than how to explain why the de Gaulle regime managed to cling on to power, thanks perhaps to the part played by the PCF and the CGT
Yes. All largely agreed.
But, there’s a word limit!
No need to worry about the word limit Helz, the Crikey Commentary Crew will fill in the gaps as they so often do (and many thanks to the Crew too,those of you doing the hard yards helping out Helen add value to the debate and the price of subscription).
I don’t include myself in the CCC as I’ll just be doing my usual thing…snipin’ and snarkin’ on the sidelines.
The reply to your article, Helen, deserves to be either very long or very short. You will (doubtless) be relieved to learn that I have decided on “very short”.
As for the readers, with all due respect to Helen, she did offer the conjecture (last December) that 2018 might be the new 1968. I replied to the effect that I would be distressed if such were the case. I argued (briefly) that May 1968 was in fact the last wimpier of the 60s and such was its significance. I received no argument to the contrary.
The Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia occurred some months later (August to be specific) and that event was a near carbon copy of the Hungarian “Uprising” of 1956. To some significant extent, and (yes an) implied rebuttal to Helen, Peterson is correct on this point but not for his over-generalised identification of the antecedents.
As to de Gaulle – well he was there for a generation. No French President has come close to lasting the distance. It was an entirely new (fresh) generation that had no direct experience of the late 40s and 50s that came to reject de Gaulle.
At the risk of wandering “off topic” (hence the new paragraph) the events of 1956 and the Czech experience of 1968 were obvious factors to the marginally cognitive that the Russian adoption of Communism was more akin to totalitarianism. To this end (and for the second time) large numbers of people ceased to have any association with communist politics.
As for the last paragraph I am by no means so sure that Gray ought to be so easily dismissed. I had occasion to make just this point (re: the recent articles on Marx) when identifying the contradiction between feminism and Marxism that those, such as Grey, have identified. The entire PC programme amounts to, as you put it succinctly, “a neo-liberal tendency to mask the power of capital with an appearance of cultural tolerance” .
As to May 1968 it is all to easy for the “old guard” to become romantic or nostalgic or just plain wrong.
Thanks for the brevity, Kyle.
I apologise for not previously countering your claim re the timidity of 1968 (a year that begins with the Tet offensive and does not truly end for some time, if we understand it as a metonym for a brief era of victories and attempted victories by persons with power made possible only by their simultaneous use of it—see also Black Power and Brown Power in the USA, MLK’s turn to a focus on poverty and against the war in the months before his murder, the 15 million Pakistanis who protested Ayub, land rights in Australia and on and on). I missed it.
Not quite sure what point you’re making about brutal Soviet expansionism. We all agree it occurred. So, there’s no rebuttal.
Your claim that de Gaulle was rejected only by people with no memory of him makes abut as much sense as claiming that the election in 1945 of Attlee was determined by people with no memory of Churchill. It’s just not true. Many older workers opposed conditions of the time.
Your final charge, that I do not give Gray his due. Well, Kyle, sometimes I think you imagine arguments I have made for fun.
While it is true that the cultural turn facilitated neoliberalism, it did not create it. It simply preceded it and if you go back and look you’ll find you are restating what I clearly said.
Kyle. Really.
“I apologise for not previously countering your claim re the timidity of 1968 ”
Did I use the word timidity Helen? Ok, well why don’t we include Kissinger’s offending against the Logan Act (re the South Vietnamese government) by convincing the government that they would get a better deal with the Republicans. Funny (literally) as to how South Vietnam got the same deal at the cost of x thousand lives four years hence. Add one more life : Bobby Kennedy. What is entirely the case was that no great movement followed 1968.
Even Haight-Ashbury was finished.
“Not quite sure what point you’re making about brutal Soviet expansionism.”
ditto – did I appeal to the phrase : brutal Soviet expansionism? The point is/was that until circa 1956 and 1968 (for good measure), for many on the Left it was a case of “Communism right or wrong”; the Soviet Union notwithstanding. The events of 1956 and 1968 changed
the perceptions of some number of prominent people (they got “real” if you prefer – or the “penny” dropped) but others continued to hope for the best – the “best” possessing no strict definition.
Your claim that de Gaulle was rejected only by people with no memory of him”
Strictly of no tangible memory of the times in which de Gaulle came to power (having emphasisd that de Gaulle was in power for a long time) and, hence, the different perspectives of de Gaulle across generations.
“election in 1945 of Attlee was determined by people with no memory of Churchill.
EXCELLENT point Helen; I hadn’t considered the comparison. Yes – the reasons are analogous but I couldn’t achieve the task in under 1500 words. As pointed out it is not a case of “no memory of the politician” but of no tangible memory of the times that the politician came to be elected; the point is subtle but it is there. Churchill was as good as finished up until the mid 30s (almost lost his seat). His own party was loathed to flick Chamberlain and it wasonly Chamberlain, deferring to Churchill, that Churchill became PM. Halifax, another “peace in our time neo-hippy”, Nazi appeaser and general spineless jerk – if he only knew it) did all he could to convince Chamberlain not to resign. Interesting, nonetheless, that Churchill (more or less) won a war but lost the first post-war election. More could be said
> It’s just not true.
I put it to you that such is the case but to extend the point would require some space.
“Your final charge, that I do not give Gray his due.”
I expressed the view that Grey could well have something to offer; the remark conveyed that the weight on this view (by no means uncommon) remained unclear. Then when I read “sometimes I think you imagine arguments I have made” I thought” no I don’t” but then, I swear to god, that “you’ll find you are restating what I clearly said” was JUST what I did think!
Good idea, “I have decided on “very short”.“, – heaven forfend that your logorrhea be curtailed into merely prolix verbosity.
A point made with slightly less than the usual tiresome superciliousness would help.
Such a short memory.
CDG: In office (president) 8 January 1959 – 28 April 1969
F. Mitterand: In office (president) 21 May 1981 – 17 May 1995
Certainly CDG had been prominent in various positions in French politics and military for a long time before his final stint as president. The reason Mitterand outlasted him is that CDG took early retirement. He resigned in 1969, almost exactly one year after the evenements. And of course it was a direct result. May ’68 was certainly a protest against the status quo–for both workers (who won most of their demands) and for students who finally exploded against the stifling by the elders in control of everything. It was almost the same as Churchill, if delayed a decade. A hero for and of the times but not of the future.
“Such a short memory”. Actually, Michael, rather a long memory but imperfect. I DID overlook Mitterand. At the time, I did consider checking but was a little too sure of my memory. Another useful reminder for me; not the first time that I have let myself down.
Agreed that May ’68 was “a protest against the status quo”; the composition or the range of occupation of the protesters was very large indeed. However, it didn’t “go” anywhere. A last “fire-cracker” on a Guy Fawkes (5 Nov.) evening. Moreover, you have made the point in less than 1500 words! Well done! “A hero for and of the times but not of the future” : succinctly put!
I instantly knew you were wrong because I knew that May ’68 caused de Gaulle to resign well before finishing his second term, while Mitterand had two full terms (and the last such president; Chirac served two terms but his second was the new shorter term of 5 years).
It is a mistake to claim that May ’68 “didn’t go anywhere”. You could make the same claim about the 60s youth revolutions elsewhere in the developed world, and it would be similarly misguided. The workers had a clear agenda and largely achieved it (with help from the students who made it a society-wide issue rather than a narrow workers-v-establishment thing). The students didn’t have a clear agenda which makes it easier to claim it didn’t go anywhere. A bit like the famous line of Brando’s when the small-town mayor asks him “what are you rebelling against” and he answers “whaddya got?”. But it was the inevitable explosion building up from the baby boom and France’s hierarchical control (something still to be resolved in Italy to this day).
Incidentally, as I am sure you know, it all began at Nanterre university–just west of Paris (only a few km west of Mitterand’s Grande Arche de la Défense)–one of the new post-war unis (equivalent of UK’s “redbricks”) but then still tightly controlled from the centre (from notionally the Sorbonne). This is one thing that did change as all these universities became genuinely autonomous (not of the state of course). It is a curious thing that the land of such great public and civic beauty of design etc would build its public universities in such hideous Stalinist (well Brutalist) concrete fashion. Alas, they remained rather second class (though let’s not get too haughty, so too do those redbricks including my own of Sussex where I did my PhD; funny enough my colonial alma mater of UQ is pure sandstone!) and underfunded , with everyone (well, their parents) desperate to get into the elite ecoles. But Macron is trying to change this too, and I believe not before time: though one cannot argue the grand ecoles are not meritocratic in admission, still we all know that parents, inevitably middle-class and well-educated themselves, tend to drive the process. It is silly to relegate the majority left in the regular universities to a lesser contribution. The former might produce highly competent technocrats to run the state (so much better than most other countries, eg. UK who leave it to lawyers and Oxbridge PPE grads) but they miss out on the Steve Jobs from the latter.
So the process in May ’68 began did not complete the process.
“I knew that May ’68 caused de Gaulle to resign well before finishing his second term”
“Caused” : a strong word. Maybe – maybe not. Evidence as to your belief”? Perhaps Howard ought to have taken a leaf from his book.
“It is a mistake to claim that May ’68 “didn’t go anywhere”.
The statement seems seems more like an article of faith. It is certainly true that the French trade unions were more sophisticated and resolute
than their British counterparts but consider the trends in REAL wages over the last 50 years. The trend in France is not dissimilar to that of Germany or Canada to about 1995. Then (after 1995 is it as flat as anywhere).
> Incidentally, as I am sure you know, it all began at Nanterre university
Circa 1979 – 80 I met a few students who were there. One was married, recently, to someone “big” in the ALP (WA) and she had some friends visiting Australia.
“But Macron is trying to change this too, and I believe not before time”
France has been “afflicted” with some interesting effects. The country has produced any number of fine mathematicians (and its schools, in
this regard, are of a high order) and similarly (although less so) for scientists. However, as to technological innovation it is a common theme in managerial literature that France doesn’t do at all well. Ditto for Canada, Oz and NZ but we’ll leave that aspect to one side. So, yes, indeed
Macon perceives the need for a strong technologically orientated service sector.
> So the process in May ’68 began did not complete the process.
You are the first person, that I am aware of (allowing for discussing the events with people whom were actually there), to infer that the evens of May ’68 were, inter alia, an attempt to redress technological standards in tertiary institutions. Perhaps (a wild guess) because the French TV transmission standard SECAM was so grossly inferior to the German/Brit PAL standard (both appearing in 1967) – for color transmission. I can’t say – other than to add that successive band-aids to the sequential paradigm (of SECAM) have been applied over the decades and so SECAM is used in France and the Middle East (or, more accurately, the orient – to appeal to an old fashioned word that doesn’t necessarily mean Asiatic).
Kyle Hargraves: “infer that the evens of May ’68 were, inter alia, an attempt to redress technological standards in tertiary institutions. Perhaps (a wild guess) because the French TV transmission standard SECAM was so grossly inferior to the German/Brit PAL standard (both appearing in 1967)”
It is not just your guess, but the whole post that is weird.
The inadequacies of the university system that the students were revolting against, even if they didn’t quite consciously apprehend, was it being treated as a inferior sector–compared to the grand ecoles–and inadequately resourced (miserable campuses, crowded classes, underfunded). Incidentally part of those things were a direct result of a sudden over-expansion of the system and elsewhere I have argued how it is reminiscent of our “demand driven” system, ie. essentially unregulated access to university leading to a lot of people who don’t really want to be there and thus crowded classes and high-dropout rates and overall low morale (of students and teachers).
As to technology, while there might be a soupcon of truth (just as you could make the claim for a lot of the world including UK and Germany) but still it is a rather shallow view. Of the three colour-tv standards it was NTSC that was the worst–until rescued by digital and plasma etc Europeans would hardly believe the poor standard of US television. The reason of course is that the first developer (the US) is not always the best and the problem with tv is that the system (broadcasters and tv sets) was so vast and expensive to upgrade that the US had locked themselves into an inferior system for half a century. (Just like both US and even UK have locked themselves into the ridiculous imperial weights & measures.) SACEM was actually developed well ahead of the German-PAL but, for similar reasons (cost of such a big change and market lag) it wasn’t introduced for more than a decade. It’s a perfectly good system (and would have been superior if the original 819-line format had been retained; HD about 50 years ahead of its time …); it actually has several technical advantages over both PAL and NTSC but because it gains those advantages by using FM it loses in editing (it must be decoded, mixed etc then recoded). Some of its advantages were carried over to the European MAC standards. But of course the sheer market scale, especially in the expensive broadcast equipment, meant it would lose out.
As to other matters technological, you need to catch up. Who do you think is building (or is major, prime contractor) for: London Cross-Rail (explicitly modelled on Paris RER-A), HS2 (UK’s first high-speed rail; HS1 doesn’t count) and the new nuclear reactors at Hinckley Point C? Which country has had the first and major network of HSR? Since 1981, more than 40 years ahead of blighty. Much of the Chinese HSR is directly from France –and of course now “copied” by technology transfer. In the early 80s the HSR line Australia contemplated was to be built by the French. Oh and those fancy modern trams in Sydney and elsewhere, without overhead wires: Alstom. Then there is the fact that we have our biggest ever defense contract with the French for their advanced subs (chosen in competition against Japanese & Germans). Speaking of things marine, France just a few weeks back launched the world’s biggest cruiseship from its shipbuilding yards.
Isn’t Airbus (true a 4-nation consortium, but has always been driven by the French), based in Toulouse and outselling Boeing in commercial jets these days? Likewise there are good reasons why the European Space Agency is based in Paris and launches its rockets from French Guiana. Have a look at your telephone and there is a 50% chance of it being stamped “Alcatel”.
Also, what was the earliest tech to (Wiki): “users could make online purchases, make train reservations, check stock prices, search the telephone directory, have a mail box, and chat in a similar way to what is now made possible by the Internet”? Minitel. It was already 5 years old by the time I first lived in France (1984) and was soon in every house and business (terminals were provided free, and were quite like the first Macintosh–but years before). This was a quite respectable version of a world-wide-web almost 15 years before the WWW; and of course that was its problem. Like NTSC, early tech adoption is not always the eventual winner, especially in a fast moving field. Of course France can claim a role in the development of the WWW by virtue of most of CERN being in France (part of it is in Switzerland but it spans the border and more of it is in France), and it is France who drives these Europe-wide “big science” projects. After CERN, the second-biggest science experiment in history, is the nuclear-fusion prototype ITER at Caradache, Province (just east of Avignon).
Who is leading seller of (non-military) drones? (Well, until China copies them and others, then becomes or is already the biggest manufacturer.)
Oh, and for the last half of my time in France I was fortunate to be involved in the Human Genome Project, which–wait for it–was led by France for a brief period in its critical early days (1992-93), indeed by my institute, until the Americans used the unbearable fact of French leadership to spook their congress to increase the funding of their own project.
So don’t come the raw prawn (or Hills Hoist) with me, maaate 🙂
Acch, my reply is in moderation.
I think we need a May-18 revolution against the powers of suppression blah, blah … I hereby throw a metaphorical pavé at Crikey.
On the one hand I am flattered by the extent of your reply but given that you are accusing me of genearalising the same applies to you. The SECAM stuff was actually an attempt at humour but do see below.
“NTSC that was the worst–until rescued by digital and plasma etc”
Did I endorse NTSC? Do you know what the acronym means? There are various “interpretations” but Not Twice the Same Colour or not the same colour twice – being the more common.
SACEM was actually developed well ahead of the German-PAL
Well not “well ahead” but never mind. However, for the average person devouring their TV dinner the three standards don’t make a lot of difference. Your market assessment of SECAM/MAC is interesting (I’ve tucked it away) but, as conveyed, SECAM has been adopted in numerous countries.
“Who do you think is building (or is major, prime contractor) for: London Cross-Rail (explicitly modelled on Paris RER-A)”
Yeah, I am acquainted with the French rail system (been over a fair bit of France with Thalys; weird that the display boards announce the platform (only) 20 minutes prior to departure when, I’m sure the shedules are known some hours in advance – but no matter)
“Much of the Chinese HSR is directly from France –and of course now “copied” by technology transfer. “ Yep; Singapore too. The Japs did much the same thing in the 60s/70s
“In the early 80s the HSR line Australia contemplated was to be built by the French” Now, it will probably be the Chinese – if it ever happens – such is life.
“Isn’t Airbus (true a 4-nation consortium, but has always been driven by the French)” You could include Concorde – another joint project.
“Minitel. It was already 5 years old by the time I first lived in France (1984)” It Didn’t waft to Australia until the very late 80s
“ CERN being in France (part of it is in Switzerland but it spans the border and more of it is in France), and it is France who drives these Europe-wide “big science” projects.”
Situational as much as anything and the projects are cooperative; as to percentages of influenced – unclear.
“So don’t come the raw prawn (or Hills Hoist) with me, maaate”
What you have offered, although you don’t seem to realise it is just a social studies project of various technologies associated with France. I could easily write as much about Solar Power research in Korea.
On the other hand, you haven’t mentioned the Common Agricultural Policy where French farmers are paid for nothing (i.e. for NOT growing and indeed have their cheques (or is direct payment nowadays) prior to getting out of bed. The CAP is utterly dysfunctional and has been in as state of reform or 60 years. Just one example of ineptness. The Fisheries Policy is no better. You don’t seem to realise (too insulated?) that there is good and bad wherever for ANY particular economy.
However, you seem oblivious to the obvious contemporary reality that wage growth is no better for your “school project” than, as pointed out : Germany. As an side I can’t conceive of the relevance that the building materials etc. that you mentioned in your second to-last-post. May 68 : it was barely more that a belch – for all your advocacy. My advice to you : return to your medication of change your GP. Either way : acquire a sense of proportion. Even disguised zealotry doesn’t go very far.
reply to Kyle Hargraves, May 17, 2018 at 10:41 pm
You directly implied that France was somehow technologically backward, citing SECAM as an example. I countered with technological facts (that SECAM was arguably the best of the 3 and certainly better than NTSC which, if you didn’t think so, then why even mention the French system??). The fact that you have now decided the “SECAM stuff was actually an attempt at humour” is clearly a lame retraction; and: “SECAM has been adopted in numerous countries.” Doh, do tell.
On HSR: “Now, it will probably be the Chinese”. The difference you ignore is that the Chinese (nor the Koreans) can claim very little in “their” HSR–it all comes from Japan, France, Siemens, Bombardier. Just like the Chinese are a contractor on that UK Hinckley C reactor, it is only because they got technology transfer on the building of France’s (and the world’s most advanced design) 1600MW EPR. So if the Chinese build an Australian HSR, chances are it will be French!
On Airbus: “You could include Concorde – another joint project.” Don’t get me started. Airbus would not exist if not for Concorde which was a technological success if economic failure. As in many of the big projects I described in my post, it was a case of France looking ahead and acting strategically, then dragging the reluctant Brits along: they saw that European aerospace skills and economic viability were going to disappear, ceding everything to the Americans. So Concorde was the result and it worked: it led to the first Airbus which was a big commercial success. All of this kept the skills alive and well in a top technological sector that France was not willing to abandon (but the Brits were, just like Thatcher abandoned advanced trains; my theory is that Rolls Royce, if it survived at all, would not be a British company but long ago would have relocated to the US where 90% of its business would have been without Concorde or Airbus).
I have no idea what your comment on Minitel means.
Re: “I could easily write as much about Solar Power research in Korea.” Huh? No, you couldn’t, and clearly in none of your “arguments” do you even attempt a coherent case. BTW, do you know that the once-Australia solar-tech company Ausra, is now owned by Areva (nuclear power giant)?
Re the CAP, Common Agricultural Policy. First, it was equally a German-led policy where the motivation was far worse than the French: maintenance of small “weekend farmers”, ie. city slickers who dabbled in farming. Second, in France it was reasonable policy to ease the pain of the transition from too-many small farms to bigger more-commercially efficient ones (even if one can argue its timeline etc). It required generational change, and contrary to whatever garbled thing you are implying, it has been successful. Third, the entire developed world does it, the biggest being the USA, and Japan has made their domestic food market almost impenetrable by foreigners. Meantime, your old country imports 60% of its food and might be in for a shock post-Brexit. So grow up.
Oh, and French cuisine is now UNESCO listed and I support the attempt to prevent, or limit, big industrialised farming to steamroller artisanal farming, cheese-making etc. The rest of the world, including Australia, has been trying to reproduce what took France several centuries. Instead of sneering, you should be learning.
As to your complaints that “You don’t seem to realise (too insulated?) that there is good and bad wherever for ANY particular economy.” Not at all, and I was simply refuting your simplistic crap on technology. And unlike you, who has travelled on trains in northern (Thalys) France, I lived there. It has made me sensitive to the mindless and uninformed, usually Anglo-American, nonsense spouted about France. But then you probably support Brexit, non?
“May 68 : it was barely more that a belch”.
Yet, here we are (including you and Helen Razer) fifty years later still arguing about it. If it is so inconsequential why is that so? (That was entirely rhetorical; I really don’t want to read any more of your fluff.)
“You directly implied that France was somehow technologically backward”
You don’t say! Having acknowledged contributions to science by the French I referred to the point (and I quote) “However, as to technological innovation it is a common theme in managerial literature that France doesn’t do at all well.” From now on, do make an effort to READ what I ACTUALLY write. This OECD paper refers : http://www.oecd.org/france/sti-outlook-2012-france.pdf
The performance of France is no more that average. The state of the economy refers (for the “nth” time)!
“Chinese are a contractor on that UK Hinckley C reactor, it is only because they got technology “
Do get real Michael. “Everybody” participates in technology transfer – including the bomb – nowadays
“On Airbus: “You could include Concorde – another joint project.” .. snip .. Airbus would not exist if not for Concorde” I THINK that was MY point.
“Re: “I could easily write as much about Solar Power research in Korea.” Huh? No, you couldn’t,
Well : am I to suppose that “ I [YOU] instantly knew you [me] were wrong” on this account too. I omitted to nominate the Korea in question but did intend South Korea.
“ and clearly in none of your “arguments” do you even attempt a coherent case.”
Are you so sure of yourself in this respect. All I have seen is simple-minded rebuttal snatched from the internet, but – to give you some due – an sentence or two was interesting. In fact your entire school-project, that you have submitted, can be found by a search approximating “French technological innovation”
“ BTW, do you know that the once-Australia solar-tech company Ausra, is now owned by Areva (nuclear power giant)?.
You forgot(?) to mention that Areva is French. Did you know that an intercom between two general stores in Ballarat (top and base of the main street) had an intercom prior to Bell shouting that revered instruction into a microphone in 1875. Even the history here is as bitchy as hell. Did you know that Australia had an optics industry that Menzies more or less destroyed single-handedly ?
Re the CAP, Common Agricultural Policy. .. snip .. it was reasonable policy to ease the pain of the transition from too-many small”
No it certainly was not. The continual subdividing of farms among siblings wrecked the prospect of viability – even in the 19th century. It’s a bit like watching the last tree being chopped down. In England the farm went to the eldest son; end of story. As an aside have you had an opportunity to read Voltaire’s “Letters on England”? Classic, if not humorous, as to how Voltaire mocks distinctly superior modes of living and the vaccination of children.
“It required generational change, and contrary to whatever garbled thing you are implying” I did mention the continual CAP-inspired reforms to fix the broken system. Any clearer for you?
“it has been successful.” If such is a success (for you) I’d hate to see a failure. Your reference to the USA etc. in regard to “penetrating” agricultural markets is a side (and NOT relevant) issue.
“ Meantime, your old country imports 60% of its food and might be in for a shock post-Brexit. “
Speculation? A major problem in NZ is that farmers grunting away with margins of 5-6% (given the value of the land) can sell the farm to the next developer and sit back with returns of twice that factor.
“So grow up.” I won’t ask ‘what do you mean’ but there is enough evidence in your posts to conclude that if a champion of CAP (a policy that is spurned by most Europeans having to pay the absurdly high taxes to fund it – you have said nothing about the inept an corrupt Fisheries Policy) can obtain a PhD then there is hope for every Parliamentarian; a bit like a MBA nowadays : not worth the paper – and, if anything, an indication of the absence of research skills. One only has to read the drivel that passes for a thesis nowadays. Grammar and punctuation: Jesus!
“you, who has travelled on trains in northern (Thalys) France …” oh damn! Ought I to have mentioned SNCF? “But then you probably support Brexit, non?”
Oui! The Scotland-independence vote was lost not because the Scots voted to stay but because retirees and those with young families having moved to Scotland for economic reasons from the UK and Ireland, voted to “stay” and, thus preserve their links. There was a majority of the latter. The Brits opted out of the EU because they had had enough of the idiocy of the unelected and pro-Germany EU Council making one stupid decision after another. Now, the Brits, having received no value for forty-odd years (and just prior to the vote recommendations that Cameron put to the Council were rejected) are now free.
Your rhetorical question regarding May 68. This is your 20 minute homework exercise Michael (for over the weekend)
(1) Identify 10 inconsequential topics, domestic or international, for which the media possesses either a fetish or an obsession.
“I really don’t want to read any more of your fluff.”
On that note/suggestion why don’t we do ourselves a favour? I only wrote the above for the record.
Please Helen, can we stop using medical conditions (” bed-pooping”) as an insult? We wouldn’t use “retard” or “spastic’ to insult people any more, but apparently incontinence is still contemptible.
I was quoting, not endorsing.
Hi Helen, I wonder if you might be interested in the attached piece – it was something I wrote about a decade ago for publication in Ken Davidson’s old ‘Dissent’ magazine. It’s a version of the Gray thesis – trying to map the continuity between the soixante huitard agenda (well, more the anglo one) and neoliberalism. I try to do this via a range of people – Barbara Ehrenreich, Christopher Lasch, good ol’ Thomas Frank – his PhD published as Conquest of Cool. And also our local guy, Mark Davies, who was running the argument even a decade earlier in the mid-1990s. I end by saying, back then in mid-2000’s, that there were the signs of a generational revolt (among X-ers) against increasingly oppressive economic circumstances! Yeah right!! Mon dieu, when will this ever come to pass. Anyway, the piece may be of interest – it is rather long.
https://www.academia.edu/5480727/Hippies_yuppies_grumpies_The_dark_history_of_the_baby_boomers
Cheers
Tim
A nice essay Tim. Yeah! There is more than a temptation to reflect upon the 60s as a variation on a theme from the film “Withnail and I” (likely expressed nowadays as “me & withnail”) but the 60s were, in a wider sense (outside of the counter-culture) still very conservative. The “idealism” existed only for a minority. In the main, the parents of the idealists and non-idealists had direct experience of the depression and of the war.
Films such as “The Big Chill” and “The Four Seasons” and, to a lesser extent, “Diner” & “Four Friends” illustrate the “conversion” from left-ist idealism to the shuffle to the Right when the character acquires a (1) job that they cannot afford to loose and (2) children if only by {literally} accident.
I’ve made a point to read Barbara Enrenreich (mentioned in your essay). Her assessment, namely : “The capital of knowledge and skills .. must therefore be constantly renewed in each individual through fresh effort and conunitment and must be shored up against the possibility of misfortune” is especially the case for some professions (e.g. electronic engineering in particular) and yet another factor to the steady elimination of the upper-middle classes – AND – a “justification?” to yuppieism and NIMBYism.
Only three pages can be displayed (pp10-12 – Linux and Mac browsers) so that is the extent of my being able to read the essay – but interesting nonetheless.
Wot’s the deal with the Too Often Spotted Disappearing Reply button?
This is to Kyle’s #383969 @4.45pm “..history here is as bitchy as hell.“, not coz I have any interest in this tedious shitfight but to put in a word for Oz as the Originator of Innovation – Jindalee, Jindivik, black box etc etc.
I give you the PMG, which developed the telex and a non-toxic xerox in the 40s, the electric PABX in 50s, conducted the first field trials of optic fibre and so on and so fifth.
This in the daze of 14yr old boys on BHP steel bikes, weighing seemingly several cwt, dashing all over Sydney with strangely important, small pieces of thin paper.
jes’ sayin’
Then there is Florey who did rather more than Fleming, DME (a navigation instrument for aeroplanes and helicopters) and WiFi (at ANU) – to add (just) three!