JJ>>I am a student in law and history. I am using my free time in between exam prep.

This place is
good as any for this debate. The longer, the more detailed, the better. Lets get rid of nonsense
dogmatic catchphrases. Lets be rational and ground our arguments.

GS>> I do hope you are more neutral and objective in your studies, otherwise my opinion for French
universities is really going down.

JJ>>Of course, Mlenchon has links and support with the PCF, the French party communist, he is a
socialist and he has affinity with their goals: fighting for the working class. For a long time, up until
HOLLAND, the PCF was allied with the French PS, one of the two moderate parties you seem to
love. In 1972, MITTERRAND, from the French socialist party, and the PCF even created le
programme commun, it was an alliance for the presidential election. It was all about Keynesian
economic policies that were later ended by MITTERRAND when he went for a more liberal
(economically) position. French communism is not the red devil you always try to make of it. It
dissociated itself from all other communism in the 1970s with the discovery of the communist
regimes atrocities.

GS>> What would you say if someone openly supporting Nazism is freely defending it, and coming up
in an election? Remember that even FN does not openly support Nazism. Why then would it be
considered normal for communism, where communism caused many more victims than Nazism?
Yes, the French Communist party was luckily never in power and thus was never able to commit the
same crimes (although their supporters are often violent in marches and strikes), and had to distance
themselves from documented communist crimes, but as long as they go by the same ideology, that is
as unbelievable as fascists distancing themselves from Hitler. As for Keynesian economic policies,
please also do answer my comment about the other half of this theory.

JJ>>You did not answer my questions about the EU and its legislation hurting the working class.
Should I presume that your silence means you agree with the way the EU works? You dont think
Barroso committed what would be called in other democratic institution a conflict of interest? Do
you think normal that the former PM of a fiscal paradise is lead the European Commission?

GS>> First of all, again, you seem to believe in classes, which have to fight each other, as if youre
stuck in the 19th or early 20th century. I only believe in cooperation between people. So I dont
believe in the 99% versus the 1%. Maybe I did not answer all of your points, as it was not exactly
very well structured (also on this point, I do hope youre doing better in your studies, but this is
already much better). I dont believe the EU legislation is hurting the working classes; in fact it is
even helping more people to get a job, but it does always have to balance carefully between the
rights for all people. Luckily they are not as one sided. Of course I dont agree with everything in the
EU, and there are a lot of possible improvements. I did already state the EU should do a better job in
avoiding conflicts of interest. As for Juncker, he was democratically elected as PM of a free country,
and then in fact also as head of the EC.

JJ>>About the program: 1) European countries are suffering from the monetary, fiscal and social
policies of Europe. France represent 18% of EUs GDP, it can be a leader for a new kind of Europe
that will stop the economical slaughter of the working class.

GS>> Maybe it would show good academic habit to indicate the source for your data. Furthermore, it
doesnt say anything to give the total % of the EUs GDP for a country, as it does of course also reflect
the size of a country, and thus a very poor comparison. It would be much better to indicate the GDP
per capita. And for that measure, according to EuroStat, France is not even in the top 10 for the EU
(of only 28 countries) for the year 2015. Not a very good statistic, in my opinion.
JJ>>Mlenchon has soften his previous stance regarding Europe. He wants to negotiate first: the EU
should not only benefit the economic interest of Germany. There is a lot of European countries (Italy,
Spain, Greece, Portugal etc.) that will follow France if the EU does not want to protect the interest of
the people. I dont know why we should continue to remain in a system that is hurting most of the
people. I am conscious that as a student there are incredible opportunities offered by the EU,
however the cost for the working class is too much.

GS>> That means, he did temporarily had to take back some of his rhetoric because he noticed
people did not follow his unrealistic program, but given a chance, he will of course go back to his own
view. If France did not have the EU, its economy and currency would have completely collapsed, and
most people would have lost almost everything.

JJ>> French workers work, per year, 1482 hours; German workers 1 371 hours (OECD, 2015). So
French workers do not work less. French workers do not work 35H hours per week, 35h is the
maximum legal working hour per week paid according to the smic (9,76/hour, before social
taxes), you CAN work 35h per week but you will be paid with a 25% bonus.

GS>> Please also be so fair to say that this is still one of the lowest numbers in their figures, and also
study what is included in those numbers. That is the least we can expect from students at university.
For instance, people working half-time are also included in this study. Please do read the warning
with those stats: The concept used is the total number of hours worked over the year divided by the
average number of people in employment. The data are intended for comparisons of trends over
time; they are unsuitable for comparisons of the level of average annual hours of work for a given
year, because of differences in their sources. Part-time workers are covered as well as full-time
workers.

JJ>>Employers are, by the cost of the 35h policy, incentivized to hire instead of making people work
longer (for a premium). It worked fine up until employers saw the marvelous opportunity offered
in delocalizing production to Asia or within Europe.

GS>>As for the incentive to hire more people, as you clearly see companies will just stop growing or
even stop completely or leave for other countries. And how can you justify people in other countries
not having the opportunity to get a job as well for more than they would have if that company did
not move to that other country. It is always a trend that those jobs start low wage, but gradually the
wages and by that the welfare in a country goes up. But globalism is indeed very much like a system
of communicating vessels; it tends to even out differences between countries.

JJ>>Then we dont need to work as much as before. As time advance, with technological
advancement, we produce more wealth with less effective human labor. So why the need to make
people work more as if we were in the 1950s?

GS>> Very simple, because people also demand more now than in the 1950s. How many people did
have one or more television sets, cars, etc. in the 1950s compared to now. Do you want to go back
to the standard of living of the 1950s?

JJ>>The minimum wage bump Mlenchon proposes is 15% augmentation. So 1300 net (+ 200
roughly from the original). No, minimum wage does not hurt employment in an environment where
delocalization (or social dumping, or exploitation of cheap labor) is severely repressed. Obama
wanted to bump the federal minimum wage, also. Critics say that it will hurt jobs, but no, it helps
demand, businesses produce and sell, everyone is happy. There is no economical evidence that
restricting middle-class revenue is an effective way to increase GDP. Otherwise, show me studies.
GS>> As I did state, there is indeed some increase in spending with people earning more, but the
minimum wage is not the correct path, however well-intended. You do see that jobs for uneducated
people easily tend to be removed by either automation or not doing those jobs at all when the
minimum wage is increased. But here you do state an important thing: basically, you want
isolationism and protectionism. Please also study in history that every time and for every region
where free trade over countries was allowed, the economy flourished, and protectionism just has the
opposite effect. The Silk Route was one of the earlier examples.

JJ>>Low skilled people, can go back to school provided that there is public spending in school offering
and that they have the means to be able to feed their family while studying. They dont eat paper.

GS>> Of course; although it is better to have people graduate with a degree when they are young.
Then it is economically easier to study, and also easier to learn. But education should always remain
a constant thing in life, often on the job itself.

JJ>>Tax rate in France for business are lower than those of a Californian start-up might have to pay
(after state and federal taxes). See Xavier Niel, French Billionaire, saying that France is an ideal place
for start-ups. The United States has a tax rate of 33%, approximately the same for France. However
big corporations evade it (they mostly pay 7% effectively in the USA, and not at all in France because
they use fiscal scheme in Luxemburg and other European fiscal paradise.) Yes, I would like small
business to pay less. Mlenchon is proposing that small business tax rate goes down from 33% to
25%.

GS>> I do partly agree that all companies should pay a similar tax rate. But just remember how this
all started, by politicians from all parties who wanted to steer people in their direction by tax codes,
which became constantly more complex, until the big companies were the ones that could afford the
specialists. Additionally, whether you like it or not, big companies do already pay a lot of taxes
indirectly through their employees (as they have to pay the full amount, including all kinds of taxes,
while employees (such as myself) basically only consider their net income), and at the same time
keep the government from having to pay those people an income. So that is 2 times a profit for the
government by (big) businesses. So of course they are important for governments and people. Just
try to cooperate, or even better, to start such as company. Many people would be very thankful.

JJ>>2) Well most neo-liberal think-tank have the same thinking as you: pay the debt holder, spending
cuts and free-market. They do not have the same priorities. And they certainly are not independent.
They are here to promote an agenda. In France we have the Institut Montaigne, an institute that you
would call independent and reliable (because cited in all respectable media outlet), but whose
leadership has close ties with Franois FILLON and Emmanuel MACRON. The last institute director
went to work for Marcons campaign. So, I dont know about the real value of their opinion.

GS>> Well, concerning those independent think-tanks, I do know of course that there are very few
to no truly independent think tanks, both from left and right and the center. The trick is just to
always have a healthy criticism, regardless of the source. And yes, respectability is a very important
resource, and organizations that risked and lost it will have a hard time getting it back, but there is
also enough competition. And some organizations do manage (most often because of their internal
rules) to collect a lot of respectability over time.

JJ>>We have followed the neo-liberal rules for decades. Dont you understand that France was never
a real socialist country (it is a European country, every developed European country has advanced
social welfare)? Dont you understand from France history that your neo-liberal friends nearly always
were in power and are destroying progressively workers right in favor of the employers? Dont you
see that empirically, statistically it is complete nonsense? Otherwise, be specific.

GS>> You tell me to be specific, but are yourself using such none-specific and in fact slogan-like terms
as neo-liberalism, as if it is an insult. As I did already write, liberalism means freedom, which is to me
one of the most important things in life. But, following Adam Smith, I also do believe that the role of
the government is to set and enforce rules, and that in this respect it did not always do a good job.
But as I already did write (and to which you did not answer), that also means that the government
should not be both judge and partner at the same time, as it cannot be impartial in that case. So for
instance transportation, or energy, it should stay out of the competition and leave that to private
companies.

JJ>>The 75% tax rate of the surplus above 1M in salaries never went through. No, the other
HOLLAND taxation raise did not concern the real middle-class, but the upper middle-class. I am all for
fiscal responsibility (people pay according to their means). Corporations must pay, and high earning
salaries also. It is for the best of the country.

GS>> For the part that already went through and even the talk about it, did already cause a lot of
harm to the French economy. Again you are dividing people in classes. And basically, if everyone
payed the same percentage, people with high incomes do already pay more than people with low
incomes.

JJ>>HOLLAND is the French Schrder. All his labor and social policies were in favor of employers:
pushing the retirement age; no augmentation of smic; death of the 35h per week; and primacy of
private conventions over labor law (so primacy of the unfair relationship between the employer, the
one who hold the capital, and the worker, the one who has only his hands and brain). Document
yourself and you will see that HOLLAND is following the track of Germany, that MACRON was his
economic advisor regarding all his labor policies. You are in complete disinformation.

GS>> I wish he were, as you can clearly see how Schrder did turn Germany from the sick man of
Europe into its economic powerhouse, with very low unemployment. But Schrder never did take
some of the very bad decisions Hollande did take, by for instance threatening big employers with
huge taxes, sending them out of the country. I do hope Macron will indeed be more like Schrder,
bringing France back on track economically. And there is a very good chance he will make it. As I said,
I do believe in cooperation, and I think he is a good example of left and right working together, as
Schrder did, and now also Merkel. As for the so-called unfair relationship between employer and
employee, why dont people then start their own business as an employer? Many people already
showed you dont need large capital to start, and with tools like crowdfunding, that even decreased
enormously. It is very simple: in a free society, the rule of supply and demand (see further) applies,
and the less employers versus employees, the lower wages will sink. So you know what to do; why
dont you do it? Life is all about making choices, but living with the consequences.

JJ>>Regarding Renters: I do not believe these people, and most importantly these institutions, should
take hostage a country. We pay them every year around 50B and they are not in the real sustainable
investing business. They do not care about the future of this country, otherwise they would fight for
the middle-class and for a more just and sustainable taxation system, the main source of the annual
payment they receive. They are a minority taking hostage French workers who are providing an
insane amount of wealth and are not remunerated accordingly.

GS>> What is taking hostage a country? Demanding you get your own money back you lent
someone, or not accepting another country does not want to reform but keeps on asking you for
more money? Large pension funds do have a huge obligation to millions of average people, and this
is not an easy responsibility. Again, rule of supply and demand makes they do make more money
than other people.

JJ>>Can you specify data showing that financial placements are at their worst historically wise? I have
heard the opposite, Finance is definitely the most prosperous area in the economy (and is the most
destructive in the way it is used). You should try speculating on FOREX and see how hard it is to be a
renter nowadays

GS>> Please indicate where I stated that financial placement are at their worst historically wise? But
it is a fact that currently interest rates are extremely low, and in many cases even negative, so you do
have to take risks to earn money with your money, which should sound like heaven for anti-
capitalists, but like hell for ordinary people trying to save some money for their retirement, possible
worse times to come, or something else. This is indeed due to Draghi, enormously overstepping his
mandate of the ECB, and in fact making matters worse. I dont know how he did not learn from Japan
in the past decades.

JJ>>4)All of this is the result of the disengagement of the State in some economic areas.

GS>> As stated earlier, this is not the task of the government, and in that case, it cannot be fully
independent.

JJ>>These people are paid a lot for finally doing something that could be done for less. Look at the
opensource software industry, 78% of businesses uses them. They are more effective, more reliable
(less prone to have backdoors implemented for business or political interest, so they preserve
privacy) and they are less expensive. You dont have to give them billions (in senseless market
valuation, it is not even a real value) to have a top performing software or technological
advancement.

GS>> In software, the open source community is indeed a very interesting new economic model, but
dont be too nave about it. First of all, it is still very limited. Secondly, open source is not the same as
license free. Thirdly, also try to find where those industries do find their income, to avoid youre
getting screwed. And finally, consider the more open community of Android versus Apple, and learn
that this model is much more prone to viruses and malware. Concerning privacy, also think that
privacy also means less possibility to stop terrorists from committing their attacks.

JJ>>Big corporation are taking a lot of power with this money and using it to fight for their corporate
right. They do not pay their fair share. Look at Apple and its fiscal evasion in Ireland that even the EU
is pissed about (incredible). Document yourself on how much they have to pay according to the
taxation legislation and how much they actually pay in each country. We could talk about a lot more
business. Do you want to talk about Mc Donalds in France? Choose you corporation and show me
data showing that they effectively pay their fair share.

GS>> About taxes paid by big companies, please see my arguments above that in fact they are
already paying enormous amounts of taxes through their employees, and at the same time keeping
the government from having to pay an income to those people. Also see my arguments above and in
earlier reply about why tax code got so complex big companies can have an advantage in having tax
specialists. Those companies are just following the law, and were not, it is up to the government to
enforce the law.

JJ>>Microsoft has an history of craving for monopolism (dont every business goal is to reach 100%
market share?): see United States vs Microsoft, 2001.
GS>> Craving for monopolism is already something completely different from having a monopoly.
Once again, you have to lower your initial statement. I think indeed every business goal is to reach
full market share (monopolism) in their sector, and the EU did set rules to prevent this. Btw, do you
really think France on its own would be able to set and enforce this type of rule, and get the same
result?

JJ>>Public-private cooperation is not only Corporate-State cooperation. There is a lot of private

citizen thatll do the job working with the government without accumulating billions of dollars that
could otherwise be injected in every household to stimulate growth and wealth sustainably.

GS>> Of course, there should be cooperation between all people and players: governments,
businesses and citizens. How much they can earn from it, is again a matter of supply and demand,
very simple.

JJ>>The idea of Mlenchon is that employers are always pushing for less money in the hand of the
working class, but are not shy in bonus for themselves. If workers can be extremely productive for
less (at it has been the trend for the last decades), employers can be paid less for the same job they
do (their job is to provide revenue for their shareholder by the way, and they are only reviewed on
that aspect at their administrative board). You have the assumption that they provide for the people:
no, they use the workforce to provide wealth for the capital of the shareholders. There is no
generosity for the working class, just a contractual servitude. This is the cold and rational reality
which you like to praise.

GS>> Everyone is always pushing for their own interests, also employees. But if it can happen in
cooperation, everyone wins, and if we fight each other, everyone loses. This is indeed the model I do
praise, since history shows it works each time.

JJ>>Show me that shareholders are generally responsible people that look for the best of the
company and not only for their return on investment.

GS>> Show me that employees are not looking for their own profit. See how stupid that is?

JJ>>5) That is called lack of morality and selfishness. No one should make money on the back of other
people. How can you accept that people live in misery? There is enough wealth and brainpower to
better manage the economy. Misery leads to violence and indirect big costs for the economy. If we
erased it, we would make tremendous savings, but there is no political will, no moral will to do so.
Being a billionaire is not a sustainable model: 1) economy is about the management of RARE/LIMITED
(according to physics) resources to fill the needs of human beings; 2) there is no limit regarding the
accumulation of resources by one individual in capitalism; 3) So someone, or some people (the 1%
the Credit Suisse (a private bank by the way, the worst kind of bank ahah) did a study about), who
are accumulating more and more resources (there is a constant growth in this accumulation since
2008), could, is, and will deprive the rest of humanity from wealth. It is simple math, if you get
something, somebody is losing it. Please show me otherwise.

GS>> As I said, it is getting extremely dangerous if some people start claiming their morality. That is
the basis of every totalitarian regime. Instead, in a free society there are of course rules set by a
majority of people, and for the rest each one is entitled to their own version of morality. My
morality is cooperation, while yours seem to divide people in classed who fight each other. History
showed which one leads to more prosperity and happier people. The advantage of a free market
system is that when people managing limited resources are constantly making mistakes, they will
automatically get replaced, which is not the case in a socialist or communist system where
someone is just appointed. That always leads to corruption. As for the statement if you get
something, somebody is losing it, here you do make the mistake of the zero-sum game. Economy is
not a zero sum game. The total amount can grow, and it will grow more with cooperation.

JJ>>Yes, Asian worker are doing better. China worker are the one leading the most strikes
worldwide. Revolution works, you see

GS>> I consider strikes as part of the rule of supply and demand, and regular evolution, although in
most optimal circumstances, when people are working together, everyone wins more. Please also do
state your source where China workers are leading most strikes worldwide. And btw, most
companies in China are stilkl controlled (directly or indirectly) by the Communist Party. I also think
you cannot deny the rise of a middle class in China, and people getting much more wealth since the
Chinese Communist Party allowed free trade, and the same happened (limited) in Cuba.

JJ>>6) Socialism is about fighting those who hold the capital and are exploiting others for their
benefit. Being an entrepreneur does not necessarily mean exploiting other people and getting
billions of dollars. There are a lot of people having idea, going through with it, not being paid billions
by immoral investment groups/banks, and hence not participating in the immoral unequal
distribution of wealth.

GS>> As you prove over and over again, socialism is about dividing people in so-called classes, and
setting them up against each other. I do believe in cooperation, based on history. As stated earlier,
everyone, including employees, do want the best for themselves, and hopefully they do think long-
term.

JJ>>7) Communism is a way to accomplish social justice. Not the only one. Society needs morality and
justice. Capitalism on its own cannot accomplish that. Real socialism is reforming society for it to
become more just. Mlenchon is a socialist, a former member of the PS. Communist is not the only
form of socialism. And citing all the crimes committed by these regimes does not make the ideals
they were trying to reach (creating social justice and equality) less relevant. Capitalism is responsible
for crimes. Nobody talks about, its clich

GS>> History showed over and again that it accomplished exactly the opposite, which is not
surprising of course, giving the ideology of dividing people in classes who fight against each other
instead of working together. Capitalism is not responsible for any crimes on the level of communism,
with goulags, explicitly triggered famines, killing fields, etc. There were indeed other totalitarian
regimes besides communist or socialist (as I stated earlier, almost every communist regime called
itself socialist). I do see liberalism as exactly the opposite of any totalitarian regime.

JJ>>However, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and such are not in the same boat. History is complex as is
human relationships. Nuances, please. You do sound like Sean Hannity and the likes.

GS>> Of course there were difference, but they did share some extremely gruel communalities, you
cannot deny that. Did you read as a student in history The Black Book of Communism, or even just
the Communist Manifest?

JJ>>8) The economy is still weak for the middle-class; the government is still needed.

GS>> The economy is indeed still relatively weak, but I would not underestimate this if you look at it
in an historical context. Government is of course always needed.

JJ>>Argentina and Greece are about corruption. Greece was let in the EU foolishly, they knew it was
not economically fit according to their standards. But corruption happened. Now because of the
greediness of a few, all Greek people are suffering. Retirement pension slashed dramatically (they
worked hard for it) because of public spending cuts for instance. The EU should lift the people, not
get them down. How do you justify the EU action regarding the working class who worked all its life
and live now in poverty because of austerity policies actively enforced by the EU?

GS>> I do fully agree here that both Argentina and Greece are about corruption. I dont know in
detail for Argentina, but in the case of Greece, it was (and in fact still is) on all levels. How can you
justify poor people in countries as Slovenia or the Baltic countries earning less that people in Greece
that they have to keep paying for Greece, refusing some reforms? How can you ask countries to pay
money from their own tax payers when there are no reforms to make sure there is a primary surplus
again? In meanwhile, Greece does have a primary surplus again. In first instance of course, the
corruption on all levels in Greece should end, but that is still not the case.

JJ>>9) Dont exploit others! I think it is a dangerous to make people believe that moral is irrelevant
because it is too relative or dangerous. It is lack of moral, (moral is the social rules put in place to
maintain peace), that is causing all this nonsense.

We can discuss the specifics, we live in democracies. But all democracies are based on moral:
equality of right insuring, in theory, no immoral or lawless exploitation of one for the gain of another.
Please prove it to me otherwise.

GS>> I dont call for an end of morality of course, but I think the only way a general morality can be
applied is by a majority of people in a democracy. As soon as some people do start claiming their
morality, youre on the brink of a totalitarian regime.

JJ>> Lets talk then about oppressive regime. The Constitution of the 5th Republic, effective in France
since 1958, give immense power to the executive branch (more specifically the PR). Practically the
Prsident de la Rpublique (PR) is absolute and does not have any kind of political responsibility
juridically speaking. A lot of articles in this Constitution can lead to a repressive regime. The program
of La France Insoumise, (which was elaborated during one year by groups of citizens supervised by
university expert. Isnt that a responsible democratic process? Do you prefer empty political program
designed as products for moderate consumption?) in the creation of a constituent assembly. It will
permit the elaboration of a new Constitution with more political responsibilities for representative to
ensure they follow through their promise. Does it look like a totalitarian agenda? I dont see other
candidates talking about it although they all went to law school and all know that the 5th
Constitution is abusive.

GS>> As a matter of fact, I agree that the kind of presidential regime in the 5th French Republic does
indeed give too much power to a single person with insufficient checks and balances (although
there are of course many of them, but not sufficient), and I even think that the plebiscite in Turkey to
go to a presidential regime does show a lot of similarities with the French system. Maybe that is the
reason we hear a lot of opposition to this proposal from other European countries, but not so much
from France?

JJ>>Free-market is not natural, it is a human construct. It has been permitted by specific historical,
political and philosophical constructions developed in Occident over a long period of time. It is not
the only model of society, nor it is the most effective according to the numerous dumb crisis, misery,
and violence it has engendered. In nature, there is mostly predation and violence, we are not nature.
We are civilized people, in the sense that we work together in peace for the greater good, because
otherwise it is war, like it or not.
GS>> I am very much convinced that free market is in fact indeed a human construct, but based on
very fundamental natural laws. Of course we are nature; it would be foolish to deny that. A kind of
civilization is just part of that nature, which you also do see with many animals, in other degrees. But
this free market also does mean cooperation, which is something extremists fail to see.

JJ>>10) The French Revolution was led by the Bourgeoisie. The period of La Terreur was a period
(which did not cover all of the revolutionary period by the way) when the revolutionary regime was
in war with all the kingdoms around it (Prussian, and such, who were afraid that the liberal thinking
(philosophical and economical) would spread into their home and destroy their order. There was civil
unrest from anti-revolutionary elements (pro-king), so the Republic (Res publica, when the State is in
own by the people and work for the common good, by opposition to the Monarchy, which is the
power of One) was in danger. It is the result of the excess of a few people. People that everybody has
forgotten about, because it is easier to blame only one person.

GS>> Of course the terror of Robespierre and his allies was only a short period of the French
Revolution, but it is a good example that revolutions do cause a lot of terror and bloodshed, not only
by the ones who were in power, as you seemed to claim, but also by the newly in power.

JJ>>If you would read closely the work of real historian regarding the Rvolution you would see that
the Bourgeoisie (the ancestor of the actual neo-liberal) won (see the legislative work for instance)
and that Robespierre is not the monster everybody (who does not really know the intricate political
history of this period) say he is. In France, it is a fact commonly accepted by the people who
documented themselves with rigorous historian work, not politically oriented bullet points.

GS>> Yes, but from what period on did they actually get a better life? Not during the Revolution
itself. If you do see English history, youll notice that the same freedom can be won without such a
revolution, and the revolution was in fact even counterproductive.

JJ>>Napoleon is an opportunist dictator who merged some ideas of the Rvolution with elements of
the Ancien Rgime (Monarchy). His main priority was to maintain stability by preserving the rights of
the Rvolution in time of war. Dont forget that autocracies and aristocracies from around Europe
wanted to restore the French Monarchy. He did not start the war. See History, please.

GS>> I totally agree he was an opportunist dictator, who did very soon adopt the same monarchic
(dynastic) elements. It was just to show that it is often so easy in a revolution to hijack it, and the
revolution led to many years or wars in all of Europe with millions of lost and very damaged lifes.

JJ>> The French Revolution of 1789 was a revolution of the bourgeoisie (who wanted more economic
freedom) against the monarchy and aristocracy (with their divine legitimization). There was
socialist elements (although the concept of socialism did not exist yet at the time), but mostly
principle that will serve the capitalist elite during the 19th century. Yes, we switched from an elite of
blood to an elite of money.

GS>> There was about everything in the French Revolution, and I think I showed what I wanted to
show: a revolution is never a good idea. Most and best advance is being made by cooperation.
Remember Ghandi or ML King.

JJ>>Please look at the European Rvolution of 1848, especially in Germany. Cost and benefits.

GS>> I did already read a lot about the era of Bismarck, thank you. I just dont understand what
youre referring to.
JJ>>Please research how, specifically the Russian revolution of 1917 began. How people protested
peaceful to be met with powder and swords. You can see the same thing in Syria it always begins the
same way.

GS>> Please also research how it ended. How people were even worse off after this revolution.
Without it, they would never had to endure the oppression of communism, goulags, famines, etc.

JJ>>Now please, can you document yourself on the violent actions the United States led covertly in
South America against anti-american regimes (socialist), specifically by financing right leaning
terror group. See Regan and the Contra affair for instance. There is no such thing as moderation in
this world.

GS>> I also did read a lot about this episode in history, including the attempts of suppression by the
Sandinistas in Nicaragua. I am very convinced Reagan did the right thing at that time. Indeed, in some
cases in South America, the US had to choose between two totalitation regimes, which are of course
no easy choices. Btw, I assume you also do know Reagan came from a very poor family, but they
were always ready to help others. He understood two very simple but powerful things: the first is
that you better help people to a job than a replacement income, so they would keep their dignity,
and the second is that each government agency has only one goal, and that is to grow itself, instead
of solving the problem they need to solve, because in that case, they would no longer be needed.
Just as an interesting aside.

JJ>>I know it is very long, but I want to be exhaustive in the arguments and facts I use.

GS>> Very long indeed, but in this way I tried to reply on all of your arguments. I hope you can do me
the same favor, especially for the items you forgot (?) to answer up to now. As I stated earlier, long,
but very one sided, and in multiple cases, I would expect more from a university student. In case of a
lengthy reply, let me already warn you that I will only respond to new arguments, and not to more of
the same.