French President Emmanuel Macron announces new right-wing government
French President Emmanuel Macron announces new right-wing government
The new cabinet pulls in allies from the centre and right, despite left-wing parties winning France's election.
French President Emmanuel Macron has unveiled his new government almost three months after a snap general election delivered a hung parliament.
The long-awaited new line up, led by Prime Minister Michel Barnier, marks a decisive shift to the right, even though a left-wing alliance won most parliamentary seats.
It comes as the European Union puts France on notice over its spiralling debt, which now far exceeds EU rules.
Among those gaining a position in the new cabinet is Bruno Retailleau, a key member of the conservative Republicans Party founded by former president Nicolas Sarkozy.
Just one left-wing politician was given a post in the cabinet, independent Didier Migaud, who was appointed as justice minister.
France's public-sector deficit is projected to reach around 5.6% of GDP this year and go over 6% in 2025. The EU has a 3% limit on deficits.
Michel Barnier, a veteran conservative, was named as Macron’s prime minister earlier this month.
Members of the left-wing alliance, the New Popular Front (NFP) have threatened a no-confidence motion in the new government.
Far-left leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon called for the new government to "be got rid of" as soon as possible.
On Saturday, before the cabinet announcement, thousands of left-wing supporters demonstrated in Paris against the incoming government, arguing that the left’s performance in the election was not taken into consideration.
You're viewing a single thread.
-
You're telling me writing something on a piece of paper in a liberal system predicated on being capitalist can't actually get rid of liberals?
Organize, comrades.
-
If voting changed anything they wouldn’t let us do it.
-
There are actually people trying to prevent voting by people other than their constituents.
France uses an In Person Paper Ballot system, with preregistration.
-
-
France could use a new Republic. what're they on, six now?
-
id recommend a commune
-
But this time seize the fucking bank
-
-
- The united left wants a sixth with major change from that slow inefficient fifth.
-
-
It took me a while to understand what you meant because we don't write anything on our ballots. There are piles of small cards with one candidate (or list) on each, we (are supposed to) pick one of each and put one in the envelope.
But yeah, I agree with your take. -
Whats your opinion on NATO?
-
FYI you're banned on basically every lefty instance/community so OP probably can't see your comment
-
2 of them saw and downvoted lmao
There is nothing lefty about a bunch of Pro-CCP cocksuckers
-
Ah yes, !leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com, famous for
- Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such, as well as condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the “anti-USA” flavor.
...being "a bunch of Pro-CCP cocksuckers"
-
Here is a LINK to a community mod over there arguing against Democracy Itself. The same one to ban me.
-
What you're calling "social democracy" is a capitalist dictatorship with minor concessions to the working class. Countries that live off of imperialism of "former" colonies just like liberal "democracies" / capitalist dictatorships like France (which always inevitably slide towards fascism like we're seeing right now) but give some of the loot to the working class.
The ruling capitalist class of these countries had to give these concessions because of their proximity to the USSR and threat of a working class revolution. It's a way of cementing capitalist rule similar to fascism. And now that the threat is gone, these concessions are gradually being undone.
I'm surprised /u/ansaas actually touched on that to the extent she did. I was under the impression that was a socdem community. Guess I misjudged them.
Her comment itself is a good answer if you're willing to read, even if I don't agree on some of her points.
Autocracy?! That’s not what that word means. Tsarism was autocracy, Chiang Kai-shek was basically an autocrat.
What you are talking about is a revisionist degenerated workers state (or bourgeois state of a new type in the case of contemporary China) in which the bureaucracy grew too strong to a quasi caste-like status above the rest of the population. There were attempts to correct this in both the USSR (workers/left/united opposition) and in the PRC (Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution) but both were crushed
So it’s definitely smth we should learn from, to not repeat those mistakes. But that does not mean turning to the snake oil that is social democracy/democratic socialism which believe that somehow we can magically convince the ruling classes of systemic change and that they will give up power voluntarily. (And even if you manage somehow to wrestle significant concessions, they will either be rolled back after 30yrs or you’ll get the bullet in a fascist coup)
EDIT: Even under bureaucratic state socialism, there still was collective rule. Yes cults of personality were established around key figures (e.g. Stalin and Mao) but you can look up CIA documents where they dismiss that Stalin had abolished collective leadership (though ofc he still was the figurehead of the bureaucracy and the dominant force). Mao had an even stronger cult of personality, but a far “weaker” position than Stalin and the leadership was far more collective (just an fyi: this is why Mao called for a cultural revolution, which was a grassroots movement btw. The capitalist roaders (party bureaucrats who wanted to get back to capitalism but keep their privileged party posts) where gaining more and more power and he was not in a dictatorial position to stop them at will. So he had to organize a mass students and youth movement. Ofc there were excesses and errors there as well)
And despite the corrupt character AES brought forth massive progress in all fields of society. Free education up to university for everyone who didn’t slack at school. Millions of emancipated people learned to read for the first time ever. Massive scientific progress. Access to culture for millions. Making things like theatre, operas, ballet, cinema and chess accessible (and affordable !) for the masses. Making sure everyone had a place to work, sleep, smth to eat and clean water. Giving women the right to work, vote, choose whom or even if to marry, to go through life unveiled and just generally choose their own lives.(but this is one of the errors again. Patriarchal social structures were still kept and social conservatism took hold, which is why women rarely if ever had the rly high positions and were barred from the military f.e.) Making sure every child had a place at a crib or kindergarten. Making good quality healthcare accessible to all free of charge. Including vaccinating even the furthest regions, that had never even seen a doctor before.
This might not seem all that impressive to the priviliged liberal, but you have to look at the state the regions where in before: semi-feudalism at best (and/or bombed into the 3rd world after WW2)
Ofc there were excesses and mistakes, as already stated. But that does not negate their achievements.
TL;DR: dismissing state socialism as “something that didn’t work for the people” is disingenuous and disregards the fact that it did work and that, despite its flaws, it worked for hundreds of millions of people. We should not demonize previous socialist experiments, neither should we glorify them, but constructively learn from their mistakes when striving for a class-, state-, and moneyless society (aka communism, which is materially possible in todays world and not an idealist utopia, but a historic necessity if humanity is to progress as a species and not devolve into barbarism/fascism)
good short clips of Parenti talking if anyone’s interested (he put it rly well imo)
-
What I called Democracy in the afforementioned thread was a hypothetical Democracy which redistrubes wealth and holds all people accountable as equals. An institution where people vote on policy and/or leaders to create a society thar benefits as many people as possible: the definition of the word.
But sure Slurp Slurp Slurp, cocksucker.
-
Your comment on that thread stated "Just tax the rich while maintaining a democracy," which is describing a social "democracy".
And this
What I called Democracy in the afforementioned thread was a hypothetical Democracy which redistrubes wealth and holds all people accountable as equals. An institution where people vote on policy and/or leaders to create a society thar benefits as many people as possible: the definition of the word.
is idealism. Under a system where everyone's held equally accountable and benefits as many people as possible (aka communism), there wouldn't be any leaders in the first place. And you will never get a redistribution of wealth under a liberal "democracy"; only through revolution. This one will stay hypothetical.
-
Bro stop wasting your time, their braincells are too tired for this.
-
Haha yeah, I'll stop there.
-
-
The alternative to my "idealism" is either no system of laws at all or a system controlled by the force of an absolute ruler.
That is why I am calling you fake communists a bunch of Dictator Cocksuckers.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-