The latter observation is true and is still true, the
observation also holding for neighborhoods of
cities such as Paris as well. Most of these identifications
go way back, all the way back to the French Revolution
in fact. Fernand Braudel provides some interesting
observations about family structure in different parts of
France and its relationship to political views, but I don't
think that fully explains it.
BTW, an easy way to figure out the political orientation
of a particular village, city, or arrondissement is to look at
the names of the streets, which reflect the local viewpoints.
Thus in Malakoff, next to where I used to live, there is a Stade
Lenine (Lenin Stadium). It is about two blocks from INSEE/
CREST where several of the leading French economists
hang out, including Edmond Malinvaud and Jean-Michel
Grandmont. Malakoff also has a Place Youri Gagarine.
Stalingrad is also a fave name for Communist-ruled localities,
which Malakoff is, mais oui.
Socialist localities are likely to have nineteenth century
revolutionary figures, but not Communards, or progressive
nineteenth century intellectuals or scientists.
Gaullist localities will have a major street named after him,
surprise surprise. Strongly reactionary places are likely to
have Jeanne d'Arc (now admired by some on the left, see
modern feminists and the current miniseries on US TV) or
Chateaubriand, or Foch, or other military leaders, although
Petain is a no-no, even in the most reactionary.
BTW, in ultra-conservative Nantes in the heart of the Vendee,
there is still an enormous column with Louis XVI on top. Die-hard
royalists still gather around on the date of his execution.
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, May 17, 1999 9:53 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:6941] petit/petty bourgoisie
>I am not an expert on the idea of the petit bourgoisie, but I don't think
that
>Marx dismissed it out of hand, but considered it to be politically
unstable,
>like the populists who could be progressive or reactionary.
>
>In effect, the petit bourgoisie were part worker/part capitalism and so
could
>go either way. Again, I did not think that Marx dismissed them, but
considered
>them to be untrustworthy.
>
>French friends have told me that you would find virtually indistinguishable
>villages -- some that would be communist, some fascist. Nobody could
explain
>the difference.
>
>
>
>
>> Doug Henwood wrote:
>> > And any
>> > U.S. radical has to take a critique of petit bourgeois (no quotes for
me,
>> > thank you) influence seriously - e.g. the localist, individually
>> > self-reliant, small-business fantasies that permeate populist and green
>> > politics specificially and American ideology in general.
>> >
>
>--
>Michael Perelman
>Economics Department
>California State University
>Chico, CA 95929
>
>Tel. 530-898-5321
>E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
