My reply to @behcettin


Thank you for posing your comment in a more comprehensible form! My first observation is that the French, for want of more accurate descriptor, flirtation with Neo-Liberalism – I would suggest that you begin here, with The French Way: How France Embraced and Rejected American Values and Power by Richard F. Kuisel (The ‘as if’ is that somehow Neo-Liberalism reflects ‘American Values’ ,this almost comic!):

Begin on page 21 for some insights about pragmatic/opportunistic  embrace of the Free Market Mythology,  from Mitterrand, and other contemporary French politicians, as they adapted some of the ideas/features of the prevailing Thatcher/Reagan Free Marketism. This provides, at least to me, a necessary political context that renders the central conceit of his authoritarian  ‘Jupertarian Politics’  as not sui generis!

Unlike Macri, who offered the Argentines Neo-Liberalism Lite, Macron offer the shopworn Neo-Liberal Trinity: Austerity,cuts in Social Services, and onerous Taxes on indispensable commodities. None of this a surprise for this ideologue, énarque  and former Banker, whose rise to power was predicated on 36.5% spoiled/uncountable  ballots, celebrated in this and other Corporatist Newspapers, as a victory: that enshrined a licence to steal, not to say destroy the ‘Welfare State’.

Except for the escalating political intervention of ‘The Great Unwashed’ ! Next will come, in the respectable bourgeouise media, whose myopia is expressed in terms of anti-violence, of course, ignoring that the Neo-Liberal Trinity is about a political/ethical nihilism that expresses itself in institutional violence. Conducted by well credentialed , not to speak of well dressed, Technocrats like Macon, whose  non-existent ‘mandate’ is/was imagined by his Neo-Liberal confederates.







About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.