In other words, 80% don't. I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make and I don't want to interpret your words as a claim that 20% is far too much. Until we get an implementation of Capitalism that proves its superiority to all other models and demonstrates its ability to regulate itself, it's probably safe to tolerate alternative points of views don't you think? If it provides moderation and balance, I'm not against it personally.

That said, the de-facto, pavlovian hostility you are probably referring to is certainly annoying: and what I mean is that sometimes it is just purely out of doctrine, without a single argument intelligent or not. But hey, you have the same thing at the other end of the spectrum, on the other side of the Atlantic where for example, the words 'socialist' or 'communist' are slurs.

It's exactly what we are talking about: Those 'commies' go well beyond oral discussions, they are materially hostile, with the ranges of consequences I explained above.

This is why it's called extremism: They are not tolerant with other points of view.

Anyway. You don't have to understand the problem for that problem to exist. Look at the other comments, there's enough testimonials of the same thing to attest that it exists. It's just that you belong to the group of people who deny it, downplay the problem, or attempt to show 'it's ok because others are doing worse', which doesn't help solving the problem.

The point is, since there is a specific risk for managers/owners of companies, I wouldn't recommend an entrepreneur to choose France. Let France solve its hostility to capitalism first, and see if people are less hostile in 5 years.

You might want to read your initial comment one more time then, my observation was related to your statistic about anti-capitalist 'opinions', but now you seem to have switched to 'violence'. The point I am making is that debating ideas is important and having a constructive critic of capitalism is necessary, that's why I have no problem with your statistic. Unless 20% of the population is ready to take up arms to install the dictatorship of proletariat, but I am sure you know this isn't the case.

> This is why it's called extremism: They are not tolerant with other points of view

Unlike you, who couldn't possibly be suspect of intolerance to other view points as demonstrated by your rhetoric.

> Anyway. You don't have to understand the problem for that problem to exist. Look at the other comments, there's enough testimonials of the same thing to attest that it exists. It's just that you belong to the group of people who deny it, downplay the problem, or attempt to show 'it's ok because others are doing worse', which doesn't help solving the problem.

You realize I quoted one line about statistics, and commented it, don't you?

In case you are curious, and since you have taken the freedom to cluster me in a group already, and seemingly know what my opinion is on your brilliant diagnostic of the problems of France:

Having lived on both sides of the Atlantic, I'm fully aware that certain aspects of France, administrative or cultural, don't exactly make it the perfect place to create a business, that said, I'm not an entrepreneur myself and there are certainly a ton of other positive aspects that should not be overlooked. As for the rest of your depiction of France as the ultimate entrepreneurial hell, it's a bit too excessive to be significant.

I really, really haven't witnessed that those 20% are non-violent, much the opposite. They wouldn't install "dictature du proletariat" of course, but mugging moderately-rich people is a recurrent story in France. That's what I'm highlighting when I quote the "Petit Grégory", other stories of physical exclusion and physical violence, including the video of the Air France CEO being mugged by employees, sequestration of management teams until they sign off grants for employees, humiliation of Christian people without grounds... French people, until demonstrated otherwise, are hostile to successful people. Except JJ Goldman, but he's openly Communist-friendly.

You say it's all peaceful discussions, but I witness the violence, verbal to physical. And beyond those 20%, another 30% are happy bystanders, who wouldn't oppose if such a scene happened ("he's rich, he didn't donate to that homeless guy, therefore he had it coming").

Look, HN is not the best place for politics, it's rather a place to arouse one's curiosity. So please take note of the phenomenon I'm bringing to your attention (which is corroborated by 3-4 prople below), and you'll notice the phenomenon in real life if you pay attention.

I have to admit I am starting to be confused about the 20% who are 'the opposite of non-violent' really are then. Since we were talking about opinions against capitalism and you made a connection to violence, I felt that you might be referring to certain fringe elements of the left who in fact, and typically during strikes, tend to riot, throw molotov cocktails and bust up some bus stops. But hey, while they are very visible when those things happen, you cannot seriously continue to make it like the 20% we are talking about are those people, it's intellectually dishonest.

Anyhow and with all due respect, there are more than just one problem with your arguments. For example, you seem to explain the motive of a crime that has been committed 30 years ago as vile jealousy and hostility to wealth and success in the French culture. The crime however remains unsolved to this day, the motive is still unknown, in other words, you are just using your own opinion as an argument. The rest of your demonstration is certainly entertaining to read as your tangents cover several populist bullet points with a little bit of virtuosity: the innuendo I think is aimed at immigrants although I am not entirely sure, and then those Greeks who don't pay their taxes, before finishing with locally grown groceries, apparently, but I have to admit you completely lost me here, and I would sincerely love to hear what you meant, it sounds fun.

I'll simply have the elegance to stop it there instead of covering the next 3 paragraphs who are in the same vein, but mostly because I chose to believe you are an intelligent person, and couldn't seriously come with something like this to make your case.

If you are ready for introspection and honestly accept to read your essay with a critical eye, you might observe that while the 4 paragraphs you wrote depict several different problems that you have identified in this country, the blame is always put on something or someone, and that's why France is such a clusterfuck to live in, and not a single time you have something constructive to say. In terms of negativity and exaggeration however, this is an open bar.

So, if you look at things objectively, you might realize that what you actually wrote simply is just: a rant, plain and simple. I think this also explains why you dared labelling me and attributing me thoughts that you suspected I had earlier. It is now very clear to me that you weren't replying to me, you were just sort of iterating your rent since you had apparently convinced yourself that I must be one of those guys of that group. It would be very nice of you to unregister me from that group you have clustered me in. And please just don't persist arguing with me on a discussion we are not having, let alone with such non arguments, having spent the first 30 years of my life in France, you realize my understanding of French capitalism isn't going to change after reading 3 or 4 testimonies in an HN thread.

Let me still contribute to your list of desirable changes that might help make things better in France. I think your essay could be seen as a perfect embodiment of something that might not just be a stereotype, but perhaps a little bit of a reality: a tendency to negatively complain about problems, without being constructive.

Who would mug you?!?

I can't speak for all ages, but the youth are incredibly passionate about politics and many hold strong anti capitalism beliefs and will enthusiastically riot at the chance to have their opinions heard.

What I love about Macron is his unashamed centerist approach. It's new in France and I hope he has ushered in a new dimension to French politics that sticks and makes it more normal for people to vote for different parties each time based on what a manifesto actually says and who's running for elected office.

Macron reminds me a little of 1997 in the UK and Tony Blair. Let's hope he avoids turning in to a war criminal in a few years time... :)

The thing is, those left leaning student bodies are the only ones to have credible presence in most universities due to the amount of support they garner to push their communications and frankly the incompetence of the right leaning student orgs.

It's a bit of a self perpetuating cycle where the right leaning folks don't have as much support structure to coordinate because of how everyone (themselves included) see the right.

- Generally, strikes start in unis and high schools in the far end of September, and, depending on the year, they may develop into fully-grown national riots in public companies (SNCF) then private companies, or if there's no political following, they die off with the October school holidays. This year I'm forecasting a lot of following, because Macron intends to take controversial decisions about employment laws during this summer.

- Flight strikes are rather planned for Christmas holidays (20 Dec-3 Jan). They have internal reasons and are generally not related to the October strike season. So, your September holidays are safe ;)

Hollande's reform clearly didn't have a majority, this one is in the same bag. Most of the people who voted for Macron did it only because of the fear of Le Pen.

The lecture is 30 years old but everything going on today makes sense after hearing him lay things out. The division in society on race, gender, income, etc is by design to keep the plebes at each others throats.