Thank you for your thought provoking comment. To paraphrase Blanche Dubois, I rely on the arguments of my critics. Why will Macron’s ‘Jupertarian Politics’ be different than other forms of authoritarian rule? If you read Ms. Chassany essay and my comment there (http://on.ft.com/2wXBsk1).
I quote from Henrik Uterwedde:
Macron has got full permission from Parliament that this reform shall be laid down by decree. This gives him complete freedom to simultaneously hold ongoing, intensive consultations with trade unions and business federations and flexibly respond to their criticism. The president wants parliament to pass these planned regulations in September. His plan for reform has great economic import but it is also highly significant politically: a litmus test for Macron’s ability to push through unpopular decisions and bring about real change in his country.
Describe to me the symbiosis that exists between this autocrat and his En Marche callabos, and those he wields power over! In sum, if a leader accomplishes his political agenda by ‘decree’ i.e. fiat, and given the fractious nature of French political life, what will be the result? Not to forget the near 37% abstentions, spoiled ballots etc. that marked the final vote in the French election.
Neo-Liberalism collapsed in 2008! Robber Capital killed the political goose that laid the golden egg: Free Market Reform, that from Thatcher/Reagan to the execrable Clinton/Obama New Democrats has held sway. Given the choice between Le Pen and Macron, Macron ‘won’ in the category of ‘the lesser of two evils’
What is troubling is that the French couldn’t or wouldn’t look across the Channel, even when Thatcherite Fillon was the front runner, reciting his Speed and Shock dreck.
Thank you for your very challenging, indeed, provocative comment. It offered me the opportunity for thought, what more could a writer ask?
In the Age of the collapse in the Neo-Liberal Dogmas, I wonder about your choice of screen name. The citizen is the primary actor in the Republican Tradition, see The Machiavellian Moment by J.G.A. Pocock for an historical/intellectual reference point, for my statement about that central actor in that tradition. Compare that actor, to the central actor in the Neo-Liberal World View, who is the entrepreneur, a human who thinks that The Market is an historical singularity, that defines the aspirations homo economicus, in toto. A reference point for that Neo-Liberal view is Hayek: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly, link here:
To address your question , if you will pardon my reducing your formulation to this: how do we rescue Capitalism from its self-destructive greed, and it devastating environmental consequences ? That could be expressed as its inherent nihilism. The model of ‘development’ as opposed to that of ‘growth’ as advocated by Manfred Max Neef seems to me to be the answer. The first approach must be that of a New-New Deal, that segues into an Economy remade into a Capitalism that serves human need and aspiration. And not the needs of Capital! In a world now dominated by the Corporatism of NAFTA, TPP and TTIP and its precursor in the EU, my Utopianism doesn’t appear to be the product of mere ‘Left’ wishful thinking. Where is that ‘Self-Correcting Market’ that was an essential cornerstone of the Neo-Liberal Mythology?
I don’t think that Capitalism is incapable of taking human need seriously. It believes in dog eat dog, to put it in vulgar terms. If your looking for the paradigmatic figure of that Corporatism: Michael Bloomberg former Mayor of New York. He helped to remove Judge Shira Scheindlin from the Stop and Frisk case, although the three judges that removed her made it clear she was not guilty of any wrongdoing. And he helped the prosecutors convict Cecily McMillian, Of Occupy Wall Street. Also watch his self-congratulatory 2014 Harvard Commencement Speech, where he warns about the ‘forces of repression’ and warned his audience about those who would deny to others the right of free speech!