Lemon, when you call a leftist force, do you measure the state of the social body and its difference with the periods of Jaurès, the Popular Front and the Common Program? Are you not sure that your aspirations come from an imaginary world that does not correspond to the reality of access to power today for those who want to support a leftist program?
I explain myself and decline a little the questions that result from it.
Seen from my window, the observation is clear. Trade unionism could only arise because, beforehand, the workers met, talked, lived together, shared a solidarity of destiny and daily life. Without this prerequisite, there is no possibility of class consciousness.
Today bodies no longer meet, group solidarities no longer exist. The course -and the drama- of the resumption of union activity will go through the need, in advance, to do social engineering: recreate the bond, rather than create class consciousness.
The strength of the neoliberal project -assumed in its doctrine- resides in the suppression of all the anchor points on which to build the link, to prevail over the individual entrepreneur of himself, rational, assuming his risks and in competition with the other. individuals
It is in this context that the popular strategy supported by JLM unfolds. Take note of this reality, without giving up the desire for change. How to unite separated people, through institutions that glorify individual power (which is consistent)?
Therefore, I agree with the comments: the result of JLM to the Presidential comes from a double support. JLM is supported by the program, to promote himself as a providential man, who will promote the program.
One cannot be separated from the other.
In my opinion, this is where the success of the LFI strategy lies.
Therein lies, in my opinion, the failure of the other parties: without a “providential man” (EELV), without a program (PC: Roussel did not campaign for his program, Zemmour), sometimes without both (PS, PR).
The current political question is:
– Do we leave it to the neoliberal right or the extreme right to permanently confiscate power in this populist moment?
– Or do we assume the seizure of power where possible? Even if that means going through populism?
Personally, I prefer the second option.
This does not evacuate the question of the figure of JLM as a providential man: we cannot rule it out, although the rebels deny it.
With age, reading and experience, I came to consider that there can be no society without institutions, and that a society cannot be established without instituting figures. I also believe that a change of institution will go through more or less violent power struggles (cf. Lordon, but also the experience of Macron), and that we are in a period of crisis that requires a transformation of our societies and our institutions: now it is the moment, and we did not choose it. He is there.
Under these conditions, I believe that JLM, over the years, has shown a certain clarity of aim that leads me to trust him to hand over the keys to the boat. Why ? He embodies a certain Gallic figure that I find, that is, of a providential man moved by the need to capture reality without losing sight of what is proposed.
Do some find you confused on certain topics? I don’t think so, as has been said here. It is empty. It’s just that you don’t share his analysis or his goal. Which is respectable, but doesn’t disqualify him, despite his anathemas.
So, there is a bet to be made: once in power, what will be the practice of JLM’s power?
Who will rely on to exercise power? Spoiler alert: he will not be able to count on ideologically refined advisers, nor on elected officials to his credit, nor on a partisan network with its militants and councilors. Therefore, you will have to accept what already exists and, if necessary, establish new organs.
Will it favor forms of delegation of decision-making or, on the contrary, will it centralize?
Will it promote the flow of information and analysis, or will it capture information?
With Macron we know the answer. With MLP, we suppose. With JLM, we saw what he managed to organize in his team.
On this subject, Lemon, you are afraid of the absence of divergent voices within the LFI, and you see it as a sign of authoritarianism. Personally, I believe that, on the contrary, the LFI is configured as a movement to seize power and presents a completely healthy and coherent operation in this perspective. (cf. also his time in Marseille which was the subject of exchanges here: JLM is quite clear about his place and that of the others and does not present any delusions of all power).
1. There were strategic disagreements within the LFI when a parliamentary group was formed, leading to departures. It seems healthy to me in an institution when we no longer have an agreement on the separation plan, instead of generating endless conflicts or compromises to keep a place warm (see PS)
2. The LFI parliamentary group is based on several tendencies that are accepted for what they are. There may be disagreements, but they are there and they are part of the strategy. This is what happens with the place given to women and indigenism. Whether you like it or not, they are part of the strategy. And JLM, with Todd as well, considers that it is a historically resolved issue and in which one should not interfere too politically, on the contrary, to have what can unite that division. I find it quite healthy too.
3. Within the parliamentary group the issues are distributed, functions and places are differentiated, each one knows what they have to do. Eg Bernalicis has justice and police. The issues seem to be the subject of a preliminary discussion of general orientation at the end of which a position emerges. Then the position is held. I find it coherent and I prefer it to the real authoritarianism of a Macron and the genuflections of the PS.
Is the model of practice of power typical of the governance of the LFI promoted by JLM transposable to a country?
I think so for the most part: share a project, differentiate places, consult and analyze the issues, then implement an orientation.
He also made it widely known that he interacted with many agencies and working groups.
Learn about the functioning of the V and the experiences of successful, aborted, collapsed populist democracy (Venezuela, Greece, Argentina, etc.).
I think he is well placed to stay on the course of transforming our societies, in an orientation that I much prefer to that of Macron or Le Pen.
I would add this important point: everyone is different when they are in a position to support a project or to oppose a project. Also, not everyone is fit for one or the other. As such, there is a real evolution between 2017 and 2022: JLM is no longer the man of the opposition, he is the man ready to carry out his project. I would add that JLM stands out for being the man behind an institutional refounding project: something that a Hollande or a Hidalgo could not be, whatever their qualities as a woman or a man of power.
Today, JLM shows that he generally manages to navigate events (cf. remobilization to be prime minister) rather than suffer through them. That seeks to unite the majority, instead of dividing. Try to reconcile the short and long term.
Macron has this quality in part: that of seizing the moment and provoking a transformation, on the other hand in the service of a divisive project.
The time calls for this type of man, and we have it in the figure of Mélenchon. We’re not going to dodge it. You have to bring him to power, then weigh the analysis of reality and the balance of power to enrich the project, prepare the next steps, contribute to the analysis and embark as many people as possible, to fight against morbid and enemy forces. participate in the adjustment and implementation of policies, etc.