Yellow Vest Protests in France because President Macron hiked up the tax on fossil fuels

[thatrapsfan]

Danielle Tartakowsky : « Les 'gilets jaunes', un phénomène miroir du macronisme »

Very interesting interview with a French historian analyzing the movement (used google translate for some of the more challenging French vocabulary and it seemed like a decent translation)

-She says the movement is a mirror image of Macron's political approach that sought to demolish and transcend the traditional left-right divide as something of the past. The movement is doing the same except in direct opposition to his agenda.

-Also says they adopt Macron's same approach/rhetoric of direct democracy and direct political action that circumvents France's traditional political pillars ( unions, civil society, associations etc)

-Points to how the movement is particularly strong in rural France and speaks of rural-urban divide in the country particularly vis-a-vis Paris and everyone else.

-Macron's core supporters were people who were able to fare well with effects of globalization and new economy, while core supporters of this movement have been primarily weakened by it.

-On whether a contradiction exists between asking for less taxs and more public services, she argues its more of a sense of "tax injustice" and a lack of confidence in the social contract (i.e. what the govts priorities are with tax revenue)

-Also argues that global context particularly weakens Macron's ability to push forth his reform agenda with Trump pushing protectionism on one hand, while Merkel not being strong enough to support his EuroZone proposals.

 

[ZoeGod]

The Mali intervention long predates Macron.

The first intervention that stopped the AQIM/Tuareg advance happened under Hollande, and the current operaiton also started under Hollande. Both were certainly at the behest of the Malian Government. I dont buy the argument that either intervention is about uranium or whatever. Yes France wants to maintain global influence, but its military operations in Mali are not about colonization.

This reminds me of the older debate about the French/UN intervention in CIV, where people were claiming the deposition of Gbagbo meant CIV was opting for colonization. For all intents and purposes, things are much better there since.

Fair points. The biggest issue is that as long as Libya is in anarchy the Sahel will never be stable. Arms and jihadist are using Libya's ungovernable spaces to launch attacks in Mali, Niger,Chad which leads to instability on Nigeria, Cameroon etc. All that France is doing is simply not totally defeating the jihadist groups. Rather contain them in a war of attrition. Now I understand it would take far larger troop commitments to even try to secure the whole Sahel the other way would be to figure out how to stabilize Libya. And the fact France as asked Algeria for help tells me there is no solid strategy other than preventing a super caliphate from the Sahel to West Africa. Which isn't a bad plan but there has to be an endgame and you have to hit at the source of the instability which is Libya. Yeah, you can train the locals which is not a bad plan bad but the fighting has to end. You can't let these insurgents have a base in a neighbouring country because the fighting will never end as we have seen in Afghanistan. At some point, Libya has to be secured and if it means backing Haftar() then so be it.

 

[thatrapsfan]

Fair points. The biggest issue is that as long as Libya is in anarchy the Sahel will never be stable. Arms and jihadist are using Libya's ungovernable spaces to launch attacks in Mali, Niger,Chad which leads to instability on Nigeria, Cameroon etc. All that France is doing is simply not totally defeating the jihadist groups. Rather contain them in a war of attrition. Now I understand it would take far larger troop commitments to even try to secure the whole Sahel the other way would be to figure out how to stabilize Libya. And the fact France as asked Algeria for help tells me there is no solid strategy other than preventing a super caliphate from the Sahel to West Africa. Which isn't a bad plan but there has to be an endgame and you have to hit at the source of the instability which is Libya. Yeah, you can train the locals which is not a bad plan bad but the fighting has to end. You can't let these insurgents have a base in a neighbouring country because the fighting will never end as we have seen in Afghanistan. At some point, Libya has to be secured and if it means backing Haftar() then so be it.

Like many similar counter-insurgencies, theyre at a standstill in Mali. Just enough to keep the Government in power, but only with nominal control of significant propotions of the country, and with an insurgency still operationally capable of mounting attacks in the country.

On Libya, France remains Haftar's most significant backer but its unclear if their strategy will ultimately succeed. Some argue the UN process is the best/only way of stabilizing the country and that France's role has weakened its chance of success. Theres also the subtext of French-Italian competition over who should take the lead on Libya.

It reminds me of Somalia for many reasons, one of that being the main policy approach of Western countries is related to containment (i.e. keeping its problems internal to its borders)

Utterances.net | Foreign Affairs How Is Making France Worse Here's one view of France's approach in Libya.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

The fact that all of the white supremacists have "randomly" sprouted up in this thread says it all

 

[88m3]

Macron just gave a speech, I didn't get to watch it, one of my alerts says he's going to raise the minimum wage. I don't see that doing the trick but wages/salaries in Europe are pretty terrible compared to the states but they do have health care and free/low cost university.




I also want to chime in that congestion charges that progressives push in the state are awful and regressive.

 

[Liu Kang]

the far right?
most of the things on that list wouldn't even be centre right ideas.

especially...

2. IMMEDIATE INCREASE of SMIC, pensions and the social minimum by 40%.

3. MASSIVE HIRING of civil servatns to restore the quality of public services before the RGPP: stations, hospitals, schools, posts…

4. HOUSING: plan construiction of 5 million HLM [rent-controlled housing] to lower the rents, the land and revitalize the economy by through hiring. Severely punish the prefects and mayors who leave homeless people sleeping outside.

11. IMMEDIATE END TO PRIVATIZATION and recuperation of public property: motorways, airports, car parks, SNCF… [state railways]

14. JUSTICE: quadruple its budget and limit in law the length of proceedings. Simplify and make justice entirely free and accessible for all.

18. PLASTICS: prohibit in the very short term the commercialization of plastic bottles, glasses and other polluting packaging.

19. PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES: to weaken their influence, general states of health and hospitals.

20. AGRICULTURE: ban on GMOs, carcinogenic pesticides, endocrine disruptors, monoculture

23. FRANCFRICA: Stop the looting and the political and military interference. Give the money from dictators and ill-gotten goods to the African people. Immediately repatriate all French soldiers. End the CFA franc system that keeps Africa in poverty. Create equal status with African states.

24. IMMIGRATION: Prevent migratory flows that can not be accommodated or integrated given the deep civilizational crisis we are experiencing.

My dude, the far right has common policies with the far left, nothing is new. The politcal spectrum is not linear but a circle. Basically, the things you pointed out (except 18 and 23, I'll give you that) are isolationist (as opposed to globalization) and has always been a part of Nationalist or Sovereignist politicians. Nationalism has always been a part of the far right (though through different means than the left) and goes hand to hand with isolationism so it's no surprise that there are calls to end privatization, increase statism and government.

It's really about some "key words" that gravitates around traditionalism and conservatism. I don't know if you French and if you are, you will probably recognize those subtleties :

• #9 : "Frexit" is absolutely a far right talking point. French politicians that mention the very word (not necessarily the idea of leaving the EU are from the right. Even though Melenchon rallied against the Lisbon treaty in 2005, he now more or less accepts that we are in thie EU though he's not against being able to negociate ways to get out. But the very word "Frexit" is a rightist key word.
• #12 : against speed radars. Though nobody likes radars, politically speaking being against the speed radars is a far right talking point. Read Melenchon about it or the Communist party about it : they are not necessarily against speed radars, they are against the privatization of them. Taxing so the state gets revenue is "OK" though some are against drastic the speed limit decreases similarly as the far right.
• #13 : being against the "global method". This method is a way of learning how to read. Politically in France at least, are opposed the syllabic method and the global one. The syllabic is the traditional ("b" + "a" = "ba", pronounced "baaaah", we call it the "b-a-ba" and that's how I learnt how to read) and the global method is one that is politically leaning to the left as it focus more on the ability of the child to read a whole word and decipher the letter from here. The syllabic method goes from the letters to the word, the global method goes from the word to the letters basically. The latter has always been met with disdain by conservative politicians as it's against "our" traditions and the way they were raised
• #15 : against "media-politician friendliness", against tax cuts and public aids for journalists. Mostly conspiracy laden talking point. Attacking journalists and their ability to do their job.
• #16 : against the state presence in the education, healthcare and the family (!!!). Once again, the way it's word is totally rightist. Politically, "la famille" is a code word for traditional family aka one father, one mother (see the Mariage pour tous protests of a couple of years ago). I mean, Petain's motto under the occupation (compared to Liberté Egalité Fraternité) was "Travail, Famille, Patrie" (Work, Family, Nation (for lack of better word)). Once again, it's about tradition as opposed to progress and subtly against the different (r)evolutions (family-wise) of the past decades (I will word it like that but you got what I meant)
• #24 : "civilizational crisis", once again, rightist talking point when talking about immigration. Though the left isn't necessarily 100% pro immigration (which is reasonnable as we can't necessarily be able to take everybody in), using the argument of civilizations issues take from (out of several), the Great Replacement theory or the Clash of civilizations one. The subtlety here is about religion.

So indeed, there are anti-capitalist points, I agree, but though those end goals are shared with the leftists, the wordings and agendas are definitely against what the left stands for. My point being that anti-capitalism is not specific of the far-left and definitely not against what the far-right prones.

 

[thatrapsfan]

Macron pledges to raise French minimum wage in response to protests

Raising minimum wage and shielding more pensioners from tax increases. Doesnt make a u-turn on the wealth tax.

 

[King Kreole]

My dude, the far right has common policies with the far left, nothing is new. The politcal spectrum is not linear but a circle. Basically, the things you pointed out (except 18 and 23, I'll give you that) are isolationist (as opposed to globalization) and has always been a part of Nationalist or Sovereignist politicians. Nationalism has always been a part of the far right (though through different means than the left) and goes hand to hand with isolationism so it's no surprise that there are calls to end privatization, increase statism and government.

It's really about some "key words" that gravitates around traditionalism and conservatism. I don't know if you French and if you are, you will probably recognize those subtleties :

• #9 : "Frexit" is absolutely a far right talking point. French politicians that mention the very word (not necessarily the idea of leaving the EU are from the right. Even though Melenchon rallied against the Lisbon treaty in 2005, he now more or less accepts that we are in thie EU though he's not against being able to negociate ways to get out. But the very word "Frexit" is a rightist key word.
• #12 : against speed radars. Though nobody likes radars, politically speaking being against the speed radars is a far right talking point. Read Melenchon about it or the Communist party about it : they are not necessarily against speed radars, they are against the privatization of them. Taxing so the state gets revenue is "OK" though some are against drastic the speed limit decreases similarly as the far right.
• #13 : being against the "global method". This method is a way of learning how to read. Politically in France at least, are opposed the syllabic method and the global one. The syllabic is the traditional ("b" + "a" = "ba", pronounced "baaaah", we call it the "b-a-ba" and that's how I learnt how to read) and the global method is one that is politically leaning to the left as it focus more on the ability of the child to read a whole word and decipher the letter from here. The syllabic method goes from the letters to the word, the global method goes from the word to the letters basically. The latter has always been met with disdain by conservative politicians as it's against "our" traditions and the way they were raised
• #15 : against "media-politician friendliness", against tax cuts and public aids for journalists. Mostly conspiracy laden talking point. Attacking journalists and their ability to do their job.
• #16 : against the state presence in the education, healthcare and the family (!!!). Once again, the way it's word is totally rightist. Politically, "la famille" is a code word for traditional family aka one father, one mother (see the Mariage pour tous protests of a couple of years ago). I mean, Petain's motto under the occupation (compared to Liberté Egalité Fraternité) was "Travail, Famille, Patrie" (Work, Family, Nation (for lack of better word)). Once again, it's about tradition as opposed to progress and subtly against the different (r)evolutions (family-wise) of the past decades (I will word it like that but you got what I meant)
• #24 : "civilizational crisis", once again, rightist talking point when talking about immigration. Though the left isn't necessarily 100% pro immigration (which is reasonnable as we can't necessarily be able to take everybody in), using the argument of civilizations issues take from (out of several), the Great Replacement theory or the Clash of civilizations one. The subtlety here is about religion.

So indeed, there are anti-capitalist points, I agree, but though those end goals are shared with the leftists, the wordings and agendas are definitely against what the left stands for. My point being that anti-capitalism is not specific of the far-left and definitely not against what the far-right prones.

This is why I've been saying for a few years now that the traditional left-right political paradigm is becoming increasingly irrelevant. I think much of the working class has realized that the elite, neoliberal globalization process over the past 30 or so years has been a boon for multi-national corporations and the elite metropolitan bourgeoisie across the globe (who have usually been aligned with liberal political organizations), but it has left them behind. It has stripped from them the protections, benefits, and support they fought for, and has thrown them into the thresher of globalized competition and predation. Wages have stagnated, standards of living have declined, and the corporate class has been making out like bandits. And now the people who derive their identity primarily from those liberal political organizations are afraid that the proles will turn to the right-wing. But they should be afraid, shouldn't they? If their liberal politics cannot offer anything in the way of support for, or even recognition of, the eroding dignity of the working masses, then why should they continue to be supported by them blindly? If liberals let the right capture anti-capitalist sentiments, they deserve to lose, because in that case, the right is the movement most speaking the language of the people.

The old left understands this dynamic implicitly, which is why its leaders (Melenchon, Corbyn, Sanders) have often espoused ideas or rhetoric that makes neoliberals uncomfortable. They're tarred with the McCarthyite redbaiting by neoliberals in an effort to distract from the systemic failures of neoliberal ideology. As you pointed out in your post, almost all of these "bad" "right-wing" issues are ones Melenchon and the old left overlap with. The old left is not a natural ally to the EU because it is under the control of neoliberal capitalists (see: Greece). Neoliberals cannot speak to that reality because they're the ones perpetrating the grift, so they try and consign all critiques of the EU to right-wing xenophobia. Immigration is another issue that neoliberals try to ahistorically push to the right-wing, when Corbyn and Sanders have both spoken about the harms to domestic labour that mass immigration can cause. Melenchon, Corbyn and Sanders have all attacked the MSM as being mouthpieces for neoliberal propaganda and not speaking to the true concerns of the masses.

All this to say, if that list of demands, even with the points you highlighted, strikes you as right-wing, that's a damning indictment of the neoliberal order, because it means the left under their rule has abandoned the people. As someone who believes in leftist ideals, not liberal political organizations, that list doesn't scare me. The door has been left open for the right-wing to waltz right on in because basically, the neoliberal offer is that the country will accept more immigrants and you get to be a part of some idealized, halycon liberal-corporatocratic future in exchange for your silence on the devastating assault of your material well-being by the corporatocracy. That is a shyt bargain. The masses are up for grabs. Whoever speaks to their material, actualized concerns is who deserves to govern. I hope it's the not the right, but only the old left can defeat them. The reigning neoliberal class is done in the streets.

 

[Duppy]

This is why I've been saying for a few years now that the traditional left-right political paradigm is becoming increasingly irrelevant. I think much of the working class has realized that the elite, neoliberal globalization process over the past 30 or so years has been a boon for multi-national corporations and the elite metropolitan bourgeoisie across the globe (who have usually been aligned with liberal political organizations), but it has left them behind. It has stripped from them the protections, benefits, and support they fought for, and has thrown them into the thresher of globalized competition and predation. Wages have stagnated, standards of living have declined, and the corporate class has been making out like bandits. And now the people who derive their identity primarily from those liberal political organizations are afraid that the proles will turn to the right-wing. But they should be afraid, shouldn't they? If their liberal politics cannot offer anything in the way of support for, or even recognition of, the eroding dignity of the working masses, then why should they continue to be supported by them blindly? If liberals let the right capture anti-capitalist sentiments, they deserve to lose, because in that case, the right is the movement most speaking the language of the people.

The old left understands this dynamic implicitly, which is why its leaders (Melenchon, Corbyn, Sanders) have often espoused ideas or rhetoric that makes neoliberals uncomfortable. They're tarred with the McCarthyite redbaiting by neoliberals in an effort to distract from the systemic failures of neoliberal ideology. As you pointed out in your post, almost all of these "bad" "right-wing" issues are ones Melenchon and the old left overlap with. The old left is not a natural ally to the EU because it is under the control of neoliberal capitalists (see: Greece). Neoliberals cannot speak to that reality because they're the ones perpetrating the grift, so they try and consign all critiques of the EU to right-wing xenophobia. Immigration is another issue that neoliberals try to ahistorically push to the right-wing, when Corbyn and Sanders have both spoken about the harms to domestic labour that mass immigration can cause. Melenchon, Corbyn and Sanders have all attacked the MSM as being mouthpieces for neoliberal propaganda and not speaking to the true concerns of the masses.

All this to say, if that list of demands, even with the points you highlighted, strikes you as right-wing, that's a damning indictment of the neoliberal order, because it means the left under their rule has abandoned the people. As someone who believes in leftist ideals, not liberal political organizations, that list doesn't scare me. The door has been left open for the right-wing to waltz right on in because basically, the neoliberal offer is that the country will accept more immigrants and you get to be a part of some idealized, halycon liberal-corporatocratic future in exchange for your silence on the devastating assault of your material well-being by the corporatocracy. That is a shyt bargain. The masses are up for grabs. Whoever speaks to their material, actualized concerns is who deserves to govern. I hope it's the not the right, but only the old left can defeat them. The reigning neoliberal class is done in the streets.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...embrace-the-far-right/?utm_term=.2df5b56d0ca8

Just adding this to your point, take it with a grain of salt, believe it or don't believe it Workers turn to people that are willing to throw them a bone with some meat on it if necessary, and this happens if truly leftist parties are nowhere to be seen/disgraced/weak/whatever have you

 

[thernbroom]

putin out here causing chaos in France and Britain

 

[Liu Kang]

[...]
The old left understands this dynamic implicitly, which is why its leaders (Melenchon, Corbyn, Sanders) have often espoused ideas or rhetoric that makes neoliberals uncomfortable. They're tarred with the McCarthyite redbaiting by neoliberals in an effort to distract from the systemic failures of neoliberal ideology. As you pointed out in your post, almost all of these "bad" "right-wing" issues are ones Melenchon and the old left overlap with. The old left is not a natural ally to the EU because it is under the control of neoliberal capitalists (see: Greece). Neoliberals cannot speak to that reality because they're the ones perpetrating the grift, so they try and consign all critiques of the EU to right-wing xenophobia. Immigration is another issue that neoliberals try to ahistorically push to the right-wing, when Corbyn and Sanders have both spoken about the harms to domestic labour that mass immigration can cause. Melenchon, Corbyn and Sanders have all attacked the MSM as being mouthpieces for neoliberal propaganda and not speaking to the true concerns of the masses.[...]

But what I'm saying is that when it comes to the ideology spectrum, they don't overlap with it.
It's not just about the end goals, it's about the way tou get to it and that's why I said that the list reeked of the far-right because though the political ideas were similar to some of the far left, the couple of code words planted here and there were painting this list (ideologically) on the far-right spectrum clearly. You talk about immigration and I definitely agree that it can be dangerous if uncontrolled. But that danger is expressed differently by the left and the right and that's what matters and what I wanted to point out. Because otherwise the socialists would agree with national-socialists but they don't.

Plus there's also another issue that is not talked about which is short-termism. The citizens will always favor policies which give them temporary progress over those that are more long-term with maybe temporary set backs. It's normal as those are micro-scale impacts that can hit people hard in their daily live. But this alos means that good policies that could change the country deeply but slowly may be met with protest (not saying that the current ones are not legitimate ). And thus far, I don't know any country that manage to solve this issue with governing.

Macron just had a speech where he talked about raising minimum wage, end of year bonuses, taxless overtime, tax cuts on retirement benefits. All of those are patches made in panic that do not treat a deeper wound.

All this to say, if that list of demands, even with the points you highlighted, strikes you as right-wing, that's a damning indictment of the neoliberal order, because it means the left under their rule has abandoned the people. As someone who believes in leftist ideals, not liberal political organizations, that list doesn't scare me. The door has been left open for the right-wing to waltz right on in because basically, the neoliberal offer is that the country will accept more immigrants and you get to be a part of some idealized, halycon liberal-corporatocratic future in exchange for your silence on the devastating assault of your material well-being by the corporatocracy. That is a shyt bargain. The masses are up for grabs. Whoever speaks to their material, actualized concerns is who deserves to govern. I hope it's the not the right, but only the old left can defeat them. The reigning neoliberal class is done in the streets.

I totally agree with your point. The "rational" left has totally lost the people in the West but once again, the points that was striking me at right wing were not necesarily in the political sense but in their ideology (morally if that makes sense). Mélénchon may want to leave the EU but not for the same reasons as LePen or Dupont-Aignan and that's where it's important. And that's what I meant by highlighting the few keywords.

Anyway, In France, the last real progressive government was in 1997-2002 when Jospin was in cohabitation with Chirac (right president). He actually made some good progressive changes (35h week hour, proximity police, universal healthcare (CMU), same sex civil "marriage", law recognizing slavery as a crime against humanity, paternity leave, Guigou justice law and others) but still they accepted globalization. They couldn't have done otherwise I think (under a right president) but its government and the several good policies gave momentum to the left in the country. So much that there were plenty of leftist candidates in the 2002 and they got many votes. So much that it split Jospin's Socialist Party vote. So much that Jospin finished 3rd and the far-right took advantage of so much leftist momentum (and the Paul Voise case) to get 2nd place .

 

[88m3]

Washington Post

5 hrs ·
Although he roundly condemned the recent violence, Macron acknowledged that people have a right to be angry: “I don’t forget that there is an anger, an indignation, which many of the French can share."


About this website

WASHINGTONPOST.COM

‘I saw them’: Macron seeks to appease ‘yellow vest’ protesters with wage increase and tax relief
After weeks of violence, the French president acknowledges the anger driving the demonstrations.

 

[mastermind]

 

[King Kreole]

Richard Wolff shoots heavy guns, big fan

 

[ZoeGod]

Macron's speech in a nutshell.