Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Archive for the ‘International’ Category

Trump Celebrates Fall of the Bastille.

with 3 comments

Image result for fall of the bastille

Trump:  Guest of honour to celebrate Bastille Day.

This is how he arrived (from top Sketch artist/Ace reporter, Plantu).

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEq86mGXoAAZNr3.jpg

Robbie Travers has yet to post on his appearance.

Despite this hiccup everyone else that matters has and was there to celebrate Bastille Day.

You can watch the splendid event direct here:

Live: Trump, Macron attend Bastille Day military parade.

A less exalted commentary is available below (L’Humanité).

 

This appears about the sum of the protests:

 

Before the day this took place.

Written by Andrew Coates

July 14, 2017 at 12:01 pm

Solidarité avec le peuple syrien ! Solidarity with the Syrian People!

with one comment

Ensemble is a bloc of a number of radical left wing groups in France.

They, by majority vote, backed Jean-Luc Mélenchon in the recent Presidential election and some of their supporters were candidates for his list, La France insoumise .

Two of them are at present MPs in the National Assembly: Clémentine Autain, 11e circonscription de Seine-Saint-Denis, and Caroline Fiat, 6e circonscription de Meurthe-et-Moselle.

This declaration, signed by Roland Merieux, Ollivier Mollaz  and Francis Sitel appears on the Ensemble site.

Without translating the whole statement – which concerns the place of foreign policy in the overall strategy of newly elected President Macron in Syria – the key points are:

  • Macron considers that there is one, “absolute enemy” in Syria,  Terrorist Groups.
  • That against these enemies it is necessary for there to be co-operation between all those fighting them.
  • That a political solution to the conflict in Syria does not have to include as a condition the departure of Assad.

(Il n’existe qu’un « ennemi absolu » : les « groupes terroristes » (un lexique extensif qui est celui de Poutine et de Bachar al-Assad). 2) Contre cet ennemi, il faut la coopération entre tous ceux qui le combattent, en premier lieu la Russie. 3) La solution politique à rechercher pour la Syrie ne saurait inclure le départ de Bachar al-Assad.)

The declaration underlines, by contrast, that Assad is guilty of crimes against humanity, that he has waged war against his own people, and that he, as a result is “our enemy” and an enemy of France.

It concludes that only the Syrian People can legitimately decide who is in Power.

Comment:

In the light of these policy changes, which are not confined to France, it would be perhaps better if the left in Britain began to look into its position on Syria, where real genocides have taken place and where the Assad regime murders and tortures,  rather than other parts of the Middle East.

What is our stand on solidarity with the Syrian people against Assad?

The issue has come to the heart of French politics at present, as this public letter in Libération today demonstrates:

TRIBUNE : Monsieur le Président, maintenir Assad, c’est soutenir le terrorisme.

Dans une interview donnée à la presse européenne le 21 juin, Emmanuel Macron ne fait plus du départ de Bachar al-Assad un «préalable à tout». Une centaine d’intellectuels et de spécialistes de la région réagissent.

******

Emmanuel Macron doit conforter la légitimité de son pouvoir. 

Sur les questions sociales, pour précipiter et gagner l’affrontement sur le Code du travail et l’augmentation de la CSG, la procédure des ordonnances offre un moyen certes peu démocratique, mais efficace pour précipiter la concrétisation de la volonté présidentielle.

Pour ce qui est des questions internationales, il ne lui est pas même besoin d’user de ce type d’opération faisant peu de cas du rôle du Parlement. La Vème République les inscrit dans un « domaine réservé » où le Président décide souverainement. Emmanuel Macron a donc toute liberté pour déployer son activisme.

Outre les rencontres avec les dirigeants de l’Union européenne, Angela Merkel en premier lieu, une visite remarquée auprès du roi du Maroc, des entretiens avec Trump et Poutine, le voici qui se saisit de la décisive question syrienne.

De longue date monte au sein des cercles dirigeants la volonté d’imposer un tournant à la diplomatie française : en finir avec un « moralisme », louable mais hors de propos, pour rallier la realpolitik. Admettre enfin que Bachar al-Assad est toujours au pouvoir, et que l’appui massif de la Russie et de l’Iran lui permettra d’y rester. Donc qu’il faut cesser de vouloir l’écarter, et s’appuyer sur l’argument que l’ennemi prioritaire c’est Daech et les « groupes terroristes » pour prôner un accord avec Poutine et Bachar !

François Hollande, au lendemain des attentats de novembre 2015, avait évoqué un tel changement de la politique française à l’égard de la Syrie. On en a entendu des échos dans les propos tenus par Jean-Yves Le Drian lorsqu’il était ministre de la Défense. Mais le cap avait avait été maintenu : pas de solution politique possible incluant de manière durable le maintien au pouvoir de Bachar al-Assad.

Dans un grand entretien accordé à huit journaux européens, dont le Figaro, Emmanuel Macron opère un tel tournant. « le vrai aggiornamento que j’ai fait à ce sujet, c’est que je n’ai pas énoncé que la destitution de Bachar al-Assad était un préalable à tout ». C’est maintenir une ambiguïté puisque les rapports de force avait déjà conduit à une inflexion de la position française, conduisant à envisager une solution de transition préservant l’existence du régime, mais préparant la mise à l’écart de Bachar al-Assad : non un « préalable », mais une conséquence de ladite transition. Emmanuel Macron affiche également une grande fermeté apparente à propos de l’usage des armes chimiques, qu’il s’engage à sanctionner, seul s’il le faut. Depuis 2013 et la reculade d’Obama on sait ce que vaut ce type de « ligne rouge » !

« Dans le même temps », deux idées décisives sont avancées :
1) Il n’existe pas de « successeur légitime » à Bachar al-Assad.
2) Cette autre concentrée en une formule terrible : « Bachar n’est pas l’ennemi de la France, mais l’ennemi du peuple syrien ».

Donc pour résumer le propos du Président :
1) Il n’existe qu’un « ennemi absolu » : les « groupes terroristes » (un lexique extensif qui est celui de Poutine et de Bachar al-Assad).
2) Contre cet ennemi, il faut la coopération entre tous ceux qui le combattent, en premier lieu la Russie.
3) La solution politique à rechercher pour la Syrie ne saurait inclure le départ de Bachar al-Assad.

Ainsi, alors que Bachar al-Assad est coupable de crimes de guerre et de crimes contre l’Humanité, que pour se maintenir au pouvoir il mène depuis six ans une guerre barbare contre son peuple, qui est cause de centaines de milliers de morts, de millions de déplacés, de la destruction du pays, lequel est livré à des occupations étrangères… Cela ne suffit pas selon Emmanuel Macron pour qu’il soit considéré comme un « ennemi de la France » !

L’auteur de Révolution a oublié la « guerre aux tyrans !»…
Faut-il rappeler au Président de la France qu’on ne combat pas le terrorisme en s’alliant à ceux qui en sont les fourriers. Et qu’un peuple n’a pas à confier aux dirigeants de ce monde le soin de désigner qui a la légitimité pour le gouverner.
Parce que Bachar al-Assad est l’ennemi du peuple syrien, il est notre ennemi. Il devrait être celui de la France, même présidée par Emmanuel Macron.

Et c’est au seul peuple syrien de décider qui ne doit pas être au pouvoir, et qui peut légitimement y accéder.

Roland Merieux – Ollivier Mollaz – Francis Sitel.

Written by Andrew Coates

July 3, 2017 at 12:17 pm

Tunisia: Protests at enforcement of Religious Law as 4 get 1 month prison for eating in public during Ramadan.

leave a comment »

RAMADAN

“We are not forced”: Tunisian campaign against making everybody obey religious law during Ramadan. 

Tunisians get jail terms for eating during Ramadan

A court in northern Tunisia handed one-month jail terms Thursday to four men for eating in public during the Muslim dawn-to-dusk fasting month of Ramadan, a spokesman said.

The four had been “eating and smoking in a public garden, a provocative act during Ramadan”, which started last week, Chokri Lahmar, prosecution spokesman at the court in Bizerte, told AFP.

He said the four men had 10 days to appeal against their one-month sentences before the terms take effect.

Their sentencing, which followed complaints from other local residents, comes ahead of a call circulated on social media for a June 11 demonstration to protect the rights of those who decline to take part in the Ramadan fast.

Although the state has the role of “guardian of religion” under the constitution, Tunisia has no specific law banning eating in public during Ramadan, a controversy which resurfaces each year in the North African country.

Most restaurants and coffeeshops remain shut in Tunisia during daylight hours over the holy month, but some establishments open behind closed curtains to prevent customers from being seen.

More in LibérationQuatre Tunisiens condamnés à un mois de prison pour avoir mangé en public pendant le ramadan.

There is a campaign in Tunisia to respect the rights of those who refuse  to fast during Ramadan and against the (forced) closure of cafés and restaurants during the day to make people conform to religious ‘law’.

#MouchBessif: La campagne qui appelle au respect des libertés des non-jeûneurs.

A Collectif pour la défense des libertés individuelles, bringing together a number of ONGs, states that this enforcement of religious obligations on everybody is an attack on personal freedoms and  contrary to Tunisia’s constitution.

A demonstration is planned on Sunday the 11th of June.

More background in Huffpost Tunisie: Fermeture de cafés et restaurants durant ramadan: La société civile tunisienne se mobilise.

 

Written by Andrew Coates

June 2, 2017 at 12:49 pm

Against ‘Left Populism’ and Sovereigntism.

with one comment

Image result for populism and parliament

Parliament now “Taking Back” the Country. 

A decade or so ago it was smart to hold Abigail’s parties, complete with prawn and grapefruit cocktails, diced cheese, salted biscuits, and bottles of Blue Nun and Mateus Rosé.

There is no post-modern irony in the present enthusiasm for restoring ancient Sovereignty. It is not just UKIP, the Patriotic Alliance, and the diehards of the Conservative and Unionist Party who look back to the days of British Constitution  ‘O’ and ‘A’ levels. In the wake of the reverse evolution of the former ‘revolutionary communists’ of Spiked-on-line into the best activists for the national Parliament, a section of the left has persuaded itself that there is much to be said for critics of ‘liberal elites’.

With Brexit, now is the time to ‘take back control’ from the European Union. Concern with their electoral backing has led them to offer a ‘left wing’ defence of national sovereignty. Their retro-party, the People’s Brexit, does not seem to have attracted many guests as yet. But it is causing deep divisions on the left, turning people’s attention backwards and fuelling the growth of national populism.

Populism

Populism…An article in the latest New Left Review, a critique of the Jan-Werner Müller’s recent What is Populism? (2016). The book is described in the ‘Programme Notes’ as a “German contribution to a burgeoning genre on opponents of the liberal order.

The author, Marco D’Eramo, whom one assumes is not German, although the notes on the contributors fail to mention his nationality, marks its main point by assaulting the claim that populism has an essence. That it marked by charismatic Leaders is exclusive, and the People into the ‘real’ people, which they alone stand for. That it is, as a result, anti-pluralist, promoting an exclusive form of identity, actual or potential ‘occupancy’ of the state, suppression of civil society and pluralism. It is, above all, a “moralistic imagination of politics. With the aid of the latest discoveries of nominalist philosophy and Port Royal epistemology, They the People (New Left Review 103. 2017) shows that  Müller, like so much political science’s ‘ideal-type’ of populism, is wrong footed. It is not just ideal (as its inspirer, Max Weber, would, we cautiously suggest, accept), but an abstract universal taken for reality. (1)

There are well-aimed shafts at a theory, and hints that the book verges towards a view of fascism as a “populism plus”, and which tries to encompass Latin America and shunts to a footnote the inclusive ‘populism’ of Evo Morales’ Bolivia (a government not without its faults, from child labour to its recent development plans).

But he fails to extend his view from a defence of would-be left populists of Podemos to an examination of those who have taken Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s writings on the subject as textbooks for building another movement in France, la France insoumise of Jean-Luc Mélenchon. This is no longer an issue of political science, but of political strategy. Could Mélenchon’s Constituent Assembly, having swept away “la caste”, politicians and oligarchs, instituted “protectionnisme solidaire”, and taken the country out of existing European Treaties, establish “l’indépendance de la France”?

Marco D’Eramo’s argument is essentially that ‘populism’ – insofar as it has any fixed meaning amongst its nominalised splinters – results from neo-liberalism. And where might be the hottest point in their confrontation? We come back to Europe, where the technocrats of said economic policies have been implemented by a “political and financial oligarchy”.

Müller, he suggests, all to clearly reflects the modern German consensus against the “decisionist’ sovereignty of ultimate power in the Nation (crudely, Carl Schmitt), and a “distrust” of “not only any idea of popular sovereignty but parliamentary sovereignty too”. Haunted by the totalitarian past he has been led to calls to “constrain democracy”, adding, in his Constraining Democracy (2011) “supranational constraints to national ones”, that is, the rule of the oligarchs fronted by a German style Grand Coalition. Hostility to the European Union that incarnates this prospect is surely shared by Mélenchon, who does not hide his dislike of Teutons, or… ‘Anglo-Saxons’.

Cosmopolitan Democracy.

We have been there before. From Jürgen Habermas to David Held’s “cosmopolitan democracy”, there have been a number of idealistic ‘post-sovereignty” theories. In 1994 Held advocated “cosmopolitan democracy” which could perhaps serve as a paradigm. This would be a world based on a kind of empirical version of Kant’s picture of human autonomy, in which “sovereignty can be stripped away from the idea of fixed borders and territories and thought of as, in principle, malleable time-space clusters. Sovereignty is an attribute of the basic democratic law, but it would be entrenched and drawn upon in diverse self-regulating associations from state to cities and corporations. Cosmopolitan law demands the subordination for regional, national and local sovereignties to an overarching legal framework, but within this framework associations may be self-governing at diverse levels” (2)

Supporters of ‘strong democracy’, that is systems with more definable locations than, “malleable time-space clusters” would not warm to Held.  But from the late 1980s to the turn of the new millennium for much of the centre and ‘post-Marxist’ left, and not just academics ‘self-organised’ civil society, the basis for “associative democracy”, was a popular idea.

There is a whole earnest literature on these topics, by writers such as John Keane, out there, waiting, neglected, to be rediscovered. One hesitates to nod at D’Ernamo’s sneers at constraints, or put better, institutional frameworks that guarantee pluralism. Much of this writing, sometimes possibly self-serving from those competing to win positions within post-Communist societies, was concerned with the very real oppressions and problems of ‘totalitarian’ societies. Its lasting legacy is not empty droits-de-l’hommisme but the defence of the democratic rights of those who are not, and will never be, sucked up in the single Sovereign Power of the People. (3)

Attention turned elsewhere. It might be argued that it was the growing perception that ‘globalisation’ was not extending the capacities of “self-governing associations”, but the national economic management that underpins states’ legitimacy, led to the erosion of those limited circles who followed Held’s cosmopolitan hopes to the full. That ‘governance’ of the economy remained poised between the national states, and, in Europe, the EU, while appearing battered by global financial, distribution and production flows, forced democratic thinking back to the nation. There they would rediscover Parliaments and Sovereignty.

Supporters of ‘strong democracy’, that is systems with more definable locations than, “malleable time-space clusters” would not have warmed to Held. Elections over a range of decision-making institutions, not just councils and Parliaments, or associations, but a wider range of public service bodies, have however taken place, as Police Commissioners have been open to the popular vote, with the extension of democratic participation that has not been universally greeted.  Few today advocate workers’ self-management, the extension of democratic principles into private companies.

Sovereigntism and the Left Today.

Sovereigntism has in fact little to say about the extension of democracy. It is a programme for national concentration and depriving everybody but the backers of populist parties of an effective voice, illiberalism against the ‘liberal order’.  But cultural and political issues (ones which have led to a great deal of often abstract debate about the nature of the ‘people’, and  the ‘imagined community’ of the nation) are only one part of the problem. For the right and for the left populists economic governance is the prize.

The body administering these processes, the State, is ‘capitalist’, that is, is institutionally wrapped around the existing power structure. It is organised to promote the interests of business. WE do not need an elaborate theoretical framework to see this. Every day shows that in the UK the administration is a ‘privatising state’ with several decades of institutional aid to companies who live off prebends for delivering ‘services’. That alone would make it a poor instrument for a radical left sovereign power. If it remains united, or is divided into the separate ‘nations’ of the British Isles, no People’s Brexit will penetrate its existing Conservative dominated legislative agenda.

The sovereigntists of the left are obstacles to wider democratic change. Many have concentrated on the nationalist populist drift of many of their supporters. For all the claims to “federate the people” these echo all too clearly the faults of populism outlined by Müller. The General Will of the People, cannot be found. Their ideal constituency, turn out to ‘the workers’ as the real’ people and the rest, as the ‘elite’, a moveable object with no clear class basis at all. The link of the Organiser of Trades Unionists Against the EU with the far-right Westmonster indicates that at least some of them feel comfortable with xenophobic dislike for migrants. If they lack charismatic leaders, they make up for it with their own blustering rhetoric.

But the difficulties lay deeper. Politics in the West does not work day-to-day through Peoples and Movements, it works through, imperfect, representative democracy which articulates, give voice to, a variety of interests strongly inflected by class.  If, through the mechanisms of election and public pressure, from protest onwards, a left government may transform it, it is less than probable that any form of democratic socialism will govern without sharing sovereignty. Making legal and economic agreements with other powers. It would need some kind of transnational union, for commerce, for migration, for finance, complete with agreed regulations. Beginning with perhaps, Europe…

********

(1) Page 106. “technically speaking, I am trying to construct an ideal type in the sense suggested by Max Weber.” What is Populism? Jan-Werner Müller. University of Pennsylvania Press. 2016.

(2) Page 234. Democracy and the Global Order David Held Polity Press. 1995.

(3) Democracy and Civil SocietyJohn Keane Verso 1988.  John Keane (ed.), Civil Society and the State (Verso, 1988);

 

Written by Andrew Coates

April 2, 2017 at 12:39 pm

France: François Fillon Stares into the Abyss.

leave a comment »

Image result for francois fillon plantu

Some People Remain Interested in Fillon’s Programme.

Police raid Fillon’s Paris home as candidate faces more defections

Police raided the Paris home of French conservative presidential candidate François Fillon on Thursday over an alleged fake job scandal, as a senior party colleague warned him that he risked dragging his party “into an abyss”. France 24.

Fillon revealed Wednesday he is set to be charged over allegations he paid his wife and children hundreds of thousands of euros for fake parliamentary jobs, but has vowed to continue in his bid for power.

After searches at his parliamentary office last month, police raided his home in central Paris on Thursday as he visited winegrowers on the campaign trial in southern France.

He was accused by Dominique de Villepin, a fellow former prime minister from his Les Républicains[formerly UMP] party, of driving the right-wing party “into the abyss”.

“Going down this dead-end street is taking the state , our faith in democracy and its fellow travellers hostage,” he wrote in Le Figaro newspaper on Thursday.

Fillon has called the charges over the fake jobs scandal “entirely calculated to stop me being a candidate for the presidential election” and has ruled out stepping aside for another candidate.

Defectors from his team and other senior Les Républicains have called for ex-premier, 71, to step up have nevertheless underlined the divisions and fears within his camp.

The list of right of centre MPs calling for Francois Fillon to give up his Presidential bid is growing.

He does retain some fervent backing:

 

To keep up to date see Libération:  LE COMPTEUR DES LÂCHEURS DE FILLON.

Everywhere he goes Fillon faces protests,

Written by Andrew Coates

March 3, 2017 at 12:16 pm

French Presidential Election: Jean Luc Mélenchon and ‘left populism’.

with one comment

Image result for melenchon et son hologram

Virtual Mélenchon.

Reuters reports (Sunday),

Far-left firebrand Jean-Luc Mélenchon embraced technology during the launch of his presidential campaign at a rally in Lyon on Sunday, with a 3D hologram of him making his speech appearing at the same time at another rally in Paris.

Mélenchon, wearing a Nehru-style jacket, tried to use the hologram technology give a modern look to his launch, which coincided with that of the far-right leader Marine Le Pen.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon opened his meeting, transmitted by hologram to Paris, with a rousing speech. But it was hard to hide that the selection of the radical green socialist, Benoît Hamon as Socialist Party candidate, has created profound difficulties for the leader of La France insoumise.

After Hamon’s victory the French left is divided. While many welcomed the Socialists’ change in direction, for the majority of Ensemble, an alliance of radical left currents and part of the (nearly defunct Front de gauche), Mélenchon remains central to the left’s prospects in France.

On the Ensemble site Roger Martelli writes of the left’s Presidential candidates, (Gauche : et maintenant ?)

Mélenchon:

Depuis une quinzaine d’années, il est de tous les combats majeurs visant à redonner au peuple sa souveraineté et à la gauche son dynamisme. Son programme, dans la continuité de celui de 2012, reprend la logique « antilibérale » et démocratique qui s’est déployée après le choc de la présidentielle de 2002.

For over 15 years he has been there in all the principal battles which have aimed to return to the people their soveriegnty and to the left its dynamism. His programme, consistent with the (Presidential election) of 2012 (when Mélenchon stood, backed by the Front de gauch left bloc), takes up again the « anti-liberal » and democratic logic used since the shock of the 2002 Presidential elections.

Of Hamon:

Au fond, Benoît Hamon incarne la continuité d’un Parti socialiste qui a accompagné les reculs successifs d’un socialisme devenu hégémonique au début des années 1980. Jean-Luc Mélenchon ouvre la voie d’une rupture dont toute la gauche pourrait bénéficier.

At root Benoît Hamon embodies continuity with a Parti Socialiste which has, since it became hegemonic since the start of the 1980s, has been marked by a succession of backward steps. Jean-Luc Mélenchon opens up the prospect of a radical break, from which all the left could benefit.

Martelli’s reference to “popular sovereignty” raises perhaps one of the most serious problems about Mélenchon’s campaign. The leader of La France Insoumise is not only concerned with “une majorité populaire à gauche”. Or a ” dose” of populism into the left, to re-occupy the field of social division, with a campaign that can express a radical protest vote.

Another Adieu au Prolétariat.

Mélenchon’s ambitions extend far and wide as he asserts the need to replace the traditional strategies of the left.

In a series of writings he has talked about L’Ère du peuple in (the grandly titled)  “époque de l’Anthropocène.” (the ‘new epoch’ in human political geography). In this perspective the old ‘hierarchy’ of struggles, centred on the primacy of the proletariat as a political subject, has been surpassed.

In a short history which takes him from the people as a ” multitude ” (without cohesion), the people/working class, as a demand-making category, we have come to the age of « networks » (réseaux). And, in France, more specifically, as he puts it himself, “réseau de soutien à ma candidature et à son programme”. (Réseaux et mouvements. 7th of January 2017)

The network launched as La France Insoumise is  at the core of the electoral and social strategy. Mélenchon is engaged in an explicit effort to capture (in his terms, form), the People, in opposition to the Oligarchy, financial and globalising. It is not shaped only by economic issues, but the with the wider effects of capitalism in society: marginalisation, social division, the long series of cultural contradictions and demands of the diverse oppressed groups. Above all it aims to “net” the concept of the People, and refound the left as a movement capable of structuring it politically as a force for progressive transformation (details of the programme on their site). Membership of what might be called a permanent “rally” does not require payment, only backing.

Supporters put this project in the same political sphere as Podemos, as a movement that aims to expand the field of democratic mobilisation against the political caste (la casta), more commonly called, in French and in English, the elites.

For this venture, which draws on the writings of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, populism is a political logic. The objective is to unify, to create a radical democratic People, not as (it is asserted) through the forms of exclusion and division, between “us”, on ethnicity or nationality and others.

Citizen-Movement and the Leader.

But, as Pierre Khalfa has observed, the “citizen-movement”, La France Insoumise, charged with this objective, organised in hundreds of “groupes d’appui” (support groups) is not democratic in the sense that political parties are – in principle.  (Le peuple et le mouvement, est-ce vraiment si simple?). There are no organised confrontations between different currents of opinion; disagreements only arise over applying the ‘line’ in local conditions. There is, in fact,the worst form of Occupy style ‘consensus politics”, ruling out by fait real dissensus,  wedded to the decisions of the Chief. It is “JLM who decides”. Or, as Laclau put it, the, “..the “symbolic unification of a group around an individuality” is inherent to the formation of a ‘people’ (Page 100. On Populist Reason 2005. ) (1)

Critics point to the lack of coherence in the definition of the would-be “people” a vast category with many internal conflicts between social groups. They also state that it is also highly unlikely that the ambition to remould populist resentment, expressed and solidly articulated in the Front National’s nationalist attacks on globalisation and a whole range of groups, from Muslims to migrant workers, has struck deep into French political reality. Detaching the  ‘floating signifier’ of the People and putting it to a new use is a hard task. It more probable, and Mélenchon’s comments on Europe, migrant labour and the importance of the French ‘nation’, that it will end up more influenced by nationalism than become an alternative to it. Over everything lingers Pierre Khalfa put it the figure of “l’homme providentiel”, the Man of Destiny(Le populisme de gauche, un oxymore dangereux).

In these conditions it is little wonder that many of the French  left are not just wary of Mélenchon, but actively hostile to his entire project.

It is equally not surprising that elsewhere would-be People’s Leaders, like George Galloway in Britain, have warmed to La France Insoumise.

****

(1)Le peuple et le « mouvement. Jean-Luc Mélenchon (2.11.16. Blog).

“Il n’y a pas de carte. Il ne peut y avoir des cotisations mais seulement des participations financières à l’action c’est-à-dire des dons ou des versements réguliers pendant la durée de celle-ci. Il n’y a pas d’autre discipline que celle de l’action, c’est-à-dire celle que chacun s’impose dans l’action individuelle ou collective.” In other words, la France Insoumise is devoted to the “action” of getting votes.

George Galloway Goes Whatabout to Defend Trump.

with 8 comments

16388412_1416023051763361_509730811771050316_n

Mad leading Ipswich Tory Kev comments, “Well Said George Galloway!

Our old friend Galloway, fresh from his triumph as top man of the Brexit ‘left’ and leading light in the Stop the War Coalition, has taken to re-tweeting Brendan O’Neill (Spiked-on-Line), and Piers Morgan in defence of his new man-crush – Donald Trump.

These are some more of the Great Man’s latest personal Tweets:

Written by Andrew Coates

January 31, 2017 at 5:37 pm