Assassin's Creed: Unity is re-igniting an historic debate
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
P.S. The Atlantic has no articles written about the numerous bugs from the game, even though it made it into several websites that usually don't cover video games. P.S. #2, The Atlantic is the website that produced that awful Scientology Paid Content Article[0]
0: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/01/1...
(If they are, that's pretty impressive work by the Ubisoft PR department.)
The simpler explanation that someone at the Atlantic pays attention to French politics, saw these complaints, and spun it into an article for their American audience.
The French President's party isn't doing to well in the polls and I wouldn't put it past them to be this desperate (I see them as both winning in a sense here).
[1] http://www.amazon.fr/Robespierre-reviens-Alexis-Corbi%C3%A8r...
And the guy triggering it can be called anything, but he most likely wouldn't take money from a video game maker just to raise such a weird controversy. He's just taking any occasion he can to have media talk about him, and being on the extreme left, he is very much attached to the global positive feeling toward the french revolution (which he would probably like to see happen once again, with him being Robespierre, of course).
Not totally enduring though, as it's a lesson that seems to be very nearly forgotten by now. Mélenchon may get his wish.
He is not extreme left either. He is from what was considered the "normal, banal" left in the 1980's, which is now tagged extreme just because they have not stopped to use the phrase 'class struggle'.
Now, the reason as to why the PS has accepted to make alliances with this party, which has always been in favor of a totally state-governed economy and against free market, and be fine with it, is an interesting question indeed (as opposed to the right wing parties who never put anyone from the extreme right in a government...for now).
Extreme left in France is parties like Lutte Ouvrière and NPA (formerly LCR). Besides, extreme left is very diverse, contains trotskysts as well as libertarians (who never, ever have supported the USSR, and some of them think that PCF militants are stalinists and socio-traitors).
You are mistaken, PCF is not considered extreme left in France. The fact that you are placed on the 'far left' on election results does not mean you are extremist. It means you are on a place of the political spectrum where journalists chose to put you, and that they have found no one more radical than they judge you are to put to your left and who presented candidates. But no one really labels PCF as extremists, except some people who have an interest in doing so: those from the right wing who wish to make a coalition with extreme right.
As for your parallel between PCF and extreme right in France (I think you refer to FN), I am truly sad that someone as smart as you are can fall in that kind of ideological trap. Look beyond the labels and actually read what the Front de Gauche proposes, it has nothing to do whatsoever with what the FN intends to do.
Melenchon, for those who do not know him, is an utter moron in French politics. Now we know he is also ignorant about History, because there's ample evidence that the age of Terror was barbaric and without mercy against anyone who may have shown any kind of sympathy for the nobility or the king, no matter their status. And with bloodthirsty guys like St Just, "Sympathy" could be defined as not being a fanatic for the revolutionary cause. And let's not forget the genocide in Vendee against masses of civilians still in favor of the King. The problem is that the Revolution did not stop at killing the King and its supporters, it basically turned into a massive genocide where everyone could become the next target. Hell, even Danton and Desmoulins were convicted to betray the Revolution ideals.
On a side note, Melenchon is known soviet Russia supporter and he probably has the same reading of the Gulags.
So, just like almost every other revolution in history, eh? (The American Rebellion and the English Civil War are arguably two exceptions, both enabled by extremely special circumstances.)
The curious thing is that that anyone bothers with revolutionary change any more. "I know! Let's have a revolution! That's hardly ever worked before so it's bound to work this time!"
Admittedly, revolutions do happen in part because of the breakdown of tyrannical regimes, but incrementalism, even in the face of tyranny, is historically far more likely to produce better outcomes. It is what freed most of Eastern Europe from the Soviets, for example.
Unfortunately incrementalism takes patience, and humans are far too willing to pursue quick fixes that don't work over long games that do. It's a very curious thing.
There's actually lots of examples from regional separatist movements that had strong buy-in from the local elites, like the American Revolution (to use its popular local name, though it really wasn't really a revolution.)
> Admittedly, revolutions do happen in part because of the breakdown of tyrannical regimes, but incrementalism, even in the face of tyranny, is historically far more likely to produce better outcomes.
Tyrannies violently purge even incrementalists, and revolutionaries (because they start out with stronger boundaries and an expectation that they'll be hunted whereas incrementalists are more open expecting to be able to work within the system) are, on average, more prepared to deal with that kind of effort.
> It is what freed most of Eastern Europe from the Soviets, for example.
It may be what freed most of Eastern Europe from Soviet-style local tyrannies, but what freed them from the USSR was the economic collapse of the USSR after a protracted spending war with the most developed economies in the world (no small part of which involved the more developed countries backing revolutionary groups in places that were within the Soviet sphere of influence, so in a very real sense revolutionaries were quite instrumental.)
Mélenchon is not a "known soviet Russia supporter" either. Or, known from whom, exactly ?
You are making a very strange use of the word genocide. There was no genocide during the French revolution, since there was no intention to deliberately extinguish any population. There were, though, very hard measures, and of course debatable, taken to try to keep the revolution going against treasons from all places against the republic.
And do not stop there, since even Robespierre was beheaded, shortly after having himself agreed to the arrest and execution of Danton and Desmoulins (which were close friends of him).