#####
######
####
> # [In a divided France, voters on the left hope to unite against the far right](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-06-23T134308Z_1059287675_RC21H8AP8NZE_RTRMADP_3_FRANCE-ELECTION-PROTEST-WOMEN-1719389723.jpg?resize=1920%2C1440)
>
>
>
> _**Names marked with an asterisk have been changed to protect identities.**_
>
> **Paris, France –** Across France, tens of thousands of protesters have taken to the streets after President Emmanuel Macron called for [snap elections](https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/6/14/france-far-right-election) in the wake of his party’s defeat at the hands of the far right in the recent [European Parliament](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/10/eu-elections-2024-who-lost-and-won-and-who-was-hurt) vote.
>
> The demonstrations are against both the hard right and Macron’s decision.
>
> In Paris, at Place de la Republique on June 15, people climbed the Marianne statue before following the familiar route from Republique to Nation.
>
> France’s newest wave of rallies was sparked by Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) party winning 31.4 percent of the vote, led by Jordan Bardella. The coalition under Macron’s Renaissance party won just 14.6 percent.
>
> Justine\*, a student in Paris, has been working on campaigns for several candidates on the left.
>
> “The RN is a party of hate based on racism and extremism and capitalism. A regime with the far right is also extremely dangerous for women’s rights,” she told Al Jazeera.
>
> Organisers have been scrambling since Macron called for snap elections.
>
> “No one was expecting this. It takes a lot to organise everything, especially for small candidates. We end up only having 15 days before they have to register. It’s not really democratic,” Justine said.
>
> ## ‘A very, very risky gamble’
>
> By calling for new elections, which will be held in two rounds on June 30 and July 7, Macron is betting on French voters coming out against the far right and setting a new tone – one of better results for the centre in future elections.
>
> “It’s a very, very risky gamble,” said Philippe Marliere, professor of French and European politics at University College London. “He will probably lose that election.”
>
> Macron’s party is unlikely to secure a majority and the nationalist and anti-immigration RN could win even more seats.
>
> If the RN reaches an absolute majority in France’s parliament, the National Assembly, Bardella could become prime minister.
>
> “The remarkable result … confirmed the surge of the far right,” Marliere said. “Never before did the far right get over the 30 percent threshold in a national election.”
>
> For Justine, the French president’s agenda has contributed to “extreme” ideologies becoming normalised.
>
> “Macron is not entirely blameless. He’s enacted policies that align with the far right and I don’t think he is a president of social rights or human rights,” she said.
>
> [INTERACTIVE European Union parliamentary elections_1-1718195650](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/INTERACTIVE-European-Union-parliamentary-elections_1-1718195650.png?w=770&resize=770%2C770)(Al Jazeera)The RN has a platform against globalisation and immigration, pushing for stricter border control and fewer ecological policies. But in recent years, voting for the RN has become more mainstream across France.
>
> “In this country, the far right has become so mainstream and normalised. What scares me the most is that people are still shocked,” Rim-Sarah Alouane, a French researcher in comparative law at the University Toulouse Capitole, told Al Jazeera.
>
> Some of Macron’s policies, such as his immigration bill, appeal to traditional far-right views.
>
> “Critics argue that [Macron] has really borrowed from RN textbook policies on immigration, Islam, all the endless culture wars, ‘wokeism’, as the French say,” said Marliere. “People get the feeling that these [ideas] are, in the end, acceptable. People are no longer afraid of voting for the party.”
>
> Beatrice Chappedelaine, a retired school teacher who lives in Normandy, said she is saddened by politics and working conditions in France.
>
> “We shouldn’t be surprised that the RN is on the rise, given the insecurity, poverty and indigence of the current government,” said Chappedelaine, who is in her mid-80s.
>
> Despite her feelings on the state of the country, she will be casting a vote in the snap elections.
>
> “I’ve always voted. For me, it’s a duty,” she said.
>
> While she did not reveal who she would vote for, she said it would not be for the RN or the left.
>
> Meanwhile, experts worry that voter turnout could be low with many away during the holiday season.
>
> Voter turnout in France for the elections for the European Parliament was 51.4 percent.
>
> Young voters had high rates of abstention: 59 percent for 25- to 34-year-olds and 51 percent for 18- to 24-year-olds.
>
> “What worries me is the timing: dissolving the National Assembly when people are going on holidays. Abstention is already very high. The far right won by people not going to vote,” Alouane said.
>
> ## ‘The left could be the real surprise’
>
> The left has formed an alliance, the Popular Front, to try to unite voters.
>
> Its platform vows to increase wages, lower the retirement age from 64 to 60, offer better protections for asylum seekers and climate refugees, and back stronger climate policies.
>
> “The left could be the real surprise in this election,” Marliere said. “It is possible that the left comes second [after RN], all parties of the left now aggregated into this coalition called Popular Front.”
>
> But the coalition does not represent unity.
>
> “The Popular Front is above all an electoral coalition,” said Marliere. “It’s not that suddenly the left is one bloc and has a new name. Certainly not. It’s there to serve one purpose: to field one single candidate per constituency because if they don’t do so, they’ll be eliminated in the first round.”
>
> Baptiste Colin, a 29-year-old theatre producer from Lyon, has reservations about the coalition.
>
> “I think the coalition is possible, but on the left, there is no clear leader. We are missing a strong media personality,” Colin told Al Jazeera.
>
> [Women hold a placard that reads: "My France to me is not the same as (the France) of those who vote for RN", as people attend a demonstration organised by feminist organisations to protest against the French far-right National Rally (Rassemblement National - RN) party, ahead of upcoming French parliamentary elections, in Paris, France, June 23, 2024. REUTERS/Gonzalo Fuentes](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-06-24T112700Z_1673622350_RC2NH8AEG5WC_RTRMADP_3_FRANCE-ELECTION-BARDELLA-1719240627.jpg?w=770&resize=770%2C515)French far right leader Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella, president of the French far-right National Rally (Rassemblement National – RN) party, leave following a press conference to present policy priorities [Gonzalo Fuentes/Reuters]RN has captured young voters, garnering support from 30 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds and 28 percent of 25- to 34-year-olds in the election on June 9.
>
> “The left does not feel listened to. I voted for Macron in 2022 and against Le Pen, but I feel like he has pushed the RN to become something more respectable. It seems like today he is saying the RN can govern, and we have to choose between the RN and Macron,” Colin said.
>
> Some of France’s biggest influencers on social media have come out against the RN, calling on their followers to vote.
>
> France’s biggest YouTuber, Squeezie, who has 19 million followers, published a post on June 14 saying it was important to “react for the good of all of the country’s citizens against a hateful and destructive ideology”.
>
> ## Macron’s majority woes
>
> President Macron’s coalition lost its absolute majority in parliament in 2022, hindering efforts to pass domestic reforms.
>
> Since then, his government has resorted to sending through legislation without a vote in parliament using Article 49.3 of the French Constitution, including his controversial retirement bill.
>
> This lack of manoeuvrability to lead as he hoped could be why he decided to dissolve parliament on June 9, according to Marliere.
>
> “It’s been extremely hard for his party to govern, to pass legislation because there’s no absolute majority,” he said. “I think Macron feels that he hasn’t been able really to govern the way he wanted because of that situation. So his room for manoeuvre was very limited. His wings were clipped, so to speak.”
>
> Jacques Chirac, a conservative, was the last president to call for snap elections in 1997, when the left won a majority. He then had to spend five years governing with the left.
>
> Regardless of their political affiliations, French voters are well aware of how critical the coming vote is.
>
> ***(continues in next comment)***
I like how the media has simplified a very complex political environment as good vs. evil. It illustrates the media bias and the little respect they have for the audience. Can the Good unite against this Evil? Will Marcon destroy the ring at Mount Doom?
So dumb.
I mean that's just not the case some of the media specially those sympathetic to macron have also been attackimg the left especially on grounds of anti semitism and fiscal irresponability
I'm saying you've fallen victim to the Law of Contagion or Magical Thinking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_contagion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking
LOL They didnt brush hands. Its the same goddamn group led by a woman who was raised pro-fascist by the groups founder and still uses the same rhetoric while being funded by fascists in Moscow. You do you.
Privately owned medias have currently joined hand with the government to jointly attack the left.
Turns out corporations and billionaires would rather have racists in power rather than paying more taxes, who knew ? Aside from historians I guess...
I'm not the billionaire firing reporters for not being racist enough, Vincent Bolloré on the other hand...
"Better Hitler than the Front Populaire" used to be a conservative slogan, funny how it still holds true to this day.
Funny thing about "Mieux vaut Hitler que le Front Populaire" is that you never see the name of the person who said it. Research it on Google. On every article on the subject you will read that some people supposedly said it, but you are never told who or when exactly. Which means it is nothing else than a rumor.
That's not how any of this works, this is the stupidest demonstration I've seen all year.
Slogans aren't quotes, they don't necessarily have an identified author, this doesn't make them "rumors", what could possibly lead you to that conclusion ?
This one was used by the "Comité des Forges" among others, corporations were eager to support the right-wing rather than the workers, this hasn't changed at all in 2024 so I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate here, yet I can confidently tell you're doing it wrong.
I am simply applying the historical research methodology. In the 1930's there was no internet and a limited telephone use, so people wrote a lot. Influential businessmen for example were exchanging a very large amount of letters. Since there was few radio, and almost no television, newspapers were the nearly unique source of information. They were thriving. There was hundreds of them, a dozens for all the political tendencies. They published on a daily basis a big number of articles. Yet in all those letters and newspapers of the time, no french historians found anything who remotely looks like "Plutôt Hitler que le Front Populaire" or "Mieux vaut Hitler que le Front Populaire" and the likes of it. So as there is no historical basis for that claim, I consider it to be a rumor and an efficient propaganda.
Except they aren't, crticizing Israel has jack to do with antisemitism.
But don't take my word for it, look up who was actually condemned for antisemitism in France for the past 30 years and see what party they are from.
Being antisemitic is a crime in France. No one in the whole of the leftist alliance has ever been charged with that crime. One of the leaders of a leftist party has sued people and won for defamation in regards to people saying he was antisemitic.
The right wing however has multiple members who have been sentenced for saying antisemitic things, they harbor neo-nazis and people who deny that the holocaust ever happened. Lets not forget that the rassemblement national was founded by a Waffen SS and the nazis were definitely antisemitic.
Different people have different reasons to dislike Muslims, some are racist, some are genuine concern. I feel Left in Europe has disregarded cultural and civil rights concerns and just labelled people racist, leading to not exactly far right surge but at least apathy among the population for their rise.
Maybe part of it is being colored from my American lense, but at least EU had done a good job of checking in corporate power, increasing green energy transition and healthcare access, but the liberals lost it partly fueled by anti Israel views of many young voters and now the far right coalition is stronger.
Their support for Israel is mixed too, but only because they too seem apathetic to Muslim concerns, but now we might also be losing economic wins because of that.
> I feel Left in Europe has disregarded cultural and civil rights concerns and just labelled people racist
Not at all. You fall victim to an indirect effect of the rise of **actually** fascist parties, though: Anything *less* extreme than what they say gets labelled as being the opposite.
The whole us-vs-them is a central part of how ultra-right parties do their business, after all. But it's important to note that there's more than two attitudes, for example in regards to border checks there's more than just:
* Let everyone in regardless.
* Let no one in whatever.
Importantly, **what every country ever has been doing virtually for its entire existance is neither of those two**.
And no left party actually lets everyone in. As an example, the current government of Germany, despite being led by the SPD and the Grüne, has significantly reduced who is allowed inside and who gets sent away and has intentionally reduced the speed with which people are let (which in itself sends people away as they have to wait for too long).
This was a reaction to the issues presented by the big wave of the migrant crisis under the CDU, a party that ought to be far more restrictive. And it was restrictive, but it still let significantly more in than the current, supposedly-less-restrictive government.
Yet, as all of these other parties **do let migrants in** - just to varying degrees and with varying restrictions - in a trump-esque move the right has screeched that all of these "Open borders, they let everyone in, they want to replace us!!". It's reduced to 100% vs 0%, when neither has really been used ever instead of edge cases by any country, ever.
Im not saying left in Europe wants unlimited migration, rather that laissez faire approach to Muslim immigrants has turned some people off. That is different.
Further like I said reducing all concerns to being scared of brown people is again being disengenous, because you have brown people like Rishi Sunak who share similar views on Muslim refugees but has been open for Indian or Chinese workers.
> rather that laissez faire approach to Muslim immigrants has turned some people off
Which isn't really a thing.
And importantly, hasn't changed much, other than in fact being tightened massively after 9/11 and the general anti-terrorism shift in politics, and then was only very marginally taken back over the next 5-6 years.
But that's kinda what I mean: Where does this idea even come from?
I'm confused. Yes, of course, we all know that. But what does stating an obvious truth have to do with this?
(edit)
Ah, sorry. Come to think about it, you think I associate things *only* with the migrant crisis in the EU.
Sorry, my bad, should have been more clear. It varies by country, but immigration and also specifically muslim immigration is not a thing that's particularly bound to the migration crisis, which also produced spikes less noticable than what most people think they would be.
Example Germany:
* We had a slump of nearly no or actually negative gains from migration prior to ~2005, lasting about 10 years.
* Only in 2015 and 2022 did we see spikes in migration, first one was ~20% higher than usual, second ~50%.
* 2023 already went back to normal levels.
* The only truly concerning thing is that migration as a whole increases (in **and** out) over the years, it has cooled a bit but it is still far higher than it used to be. It's unsure whether this is just due to increased knowledge of the English language (and hence ease of moving countries) and increased global interaciton (and hence couples moving around/together across country borders), or there's a more direct reason that both immigration and exmigration are overall increasing.
My key point here is: The migration agenda and stance issues are **not** a thing to be focused overly or even much on the migrant crisis. There's another problem to discuss with that, and that is how to be prepared for such inherently unknowledge events. But as far as handling both immigration and exmigration, the impact of the migrant crisis is not the big relevant thing that we ought to focus on.
Hence my comment about 9/11 was about how migration in general was approached by the ruling parties. Sorry, I should have made that more clear.
Factuellement incorrecte. The state council did not rule on political qualifications of a political party. They merely ruled it wasn't illegal to state that the RN is far right. They do not imply it is the truth or their view.
We do not have to go down to their level of spreading half truths, let the far right have the monopoly on such behaviors
Je soutiens l'union et vote à gauche!!
The State Council said i was okay to call them extreme-right, ergo, they agree that the categorization as extreme-right is valid.
Or that's, at least,how i see it.
the RN literraly sued to get the label of "extreme right" off of them, and the state council said it was appropriate and they can't get angry about it.
Also, deffamation laws exist.
Their party was founded by actual Waffen SS nazis, they literally attack the constitutional council legitimacy and want to deport french people that descend from immigrants. How is this not far right???
It is much more recent than that, some of the founding members like Jean Marie Le Pen are still alive, it's a tight family with Marine, Jordan, Marion, Louis Aliot etc.
Some of THIS YEAR'S nominees have done things such as imitating monkey noises towards black people, or saying things like "africans belong to africa" (clearly hinting at brown people in France...), and countless other things I can't be hassled to list here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bousquet
> section leader (Rottenführer) in the Waffen-SS Charlemagne Division
> the first treasurer and a founding member of the National Front
Note: the national front was renamed into national rally, the original name is national front.
What does that even mean ? If its genuine, literally one major politician frlm what is remaining of the historical right wing party left this morning saying "the party is dead". And the RN , far right party has been fonded by a negationist who was totally assuming his far right label. His daughter is now the president of this successor party and all the same people remain. After european election , they immediatly started negotiation with an other far right party wthat also assume 100% irs label. So no , the left isnt assuming everyone is far right , macron and lepen dissolved the right. And now what is remaining is either right wing centrist with macron or far right under Lepen banner.
2 members and 1 ex members of the party we're facing trial in june 2024 because they had national priority in their programm and many candidate are racist/homophobic, misogynistic and/or anti-semitic.
It's to exclude foreigners from socials benefits and publics accommodation ( they also want to forbid sensitive job to those who have two nationality but it's a slippery slope what are sensitive job)
"Decent" and "state funded" are mutually exclusive.
You want good education, you want low taxes and private schools.
You want indoctrination, go ahead with letting politicians decide what can or cant be taught.
> "Decent" and "state funded" are mutually exclusive.
>You want good education, you want low taxes and private schools.
That’s factually and indisputably wrong. The best Universities in Europe are public and/or state funded. The private and private funded universities are all at the bottom of the rankings.
And this holds true if you even include the UK (private unis legally, but publicly funded and run like state unis).
Get off your American horse. US is an aberration, an exception not the rule.
In rankings that measure education riiiiight?
Oh wait, no. The public ones are #1 in rankings that evaluate quantity of papers produced, or quantity of citations.
They're not better. Just bigger.
I don’t get your point.
Of course research output and quality plays a role in rankings.
Universities are as much research institutions as they are educational ones. Their main goal is to produce (and employ) researchers, not to teach you how teachers would teach students in high school. If you look at a professor’s work schedule, it’s 2/3rds research and research adjacent (ie producing papers, supervising masters and PhD candidates, organising/participating in conferences, etc etc.), and 1/3rd traditional teaching.
My point is that there isn't a single ranking that even takes education into account. Its all 100% academic.
And it makes sense. Measuring education quality would require standardized tests, or some weirder measurements such as student satisfaction or unemployment among recent graduates. All are tricky or expensive.
So the ranks are 100% just academic.
Meanwhile the case for public higher education is 100% education. A negligible amount of people say "we need to fund research" but just about everyone says "we need to fund the next generation of engineers/doctors/etc". If anything this is a huge bait and switch: Everyone voted for education, politicians deliver research instead.
Meaning the argument "public colleges get better rankings" is irrelevant in a discussion about public education.
Public universities aren't in the "ministry of research", they're in the "ministry of education" in every country i'm aware of.
And i wont even get into the discussion of the huge percentage of research that is just "visibility of transmasc women in native populations" and other such junk.
Seems like they educate the drive to the bottom in private systems.
Low taxes so public schools are shit and only specific club can access the system. Therefore not driving the society with the most talented people but with the people who can afford it. And then they talk about private education being the best -> I suspect they are not the brightest ones of the flock by the definition, they are just the richest and loudest..
Who do you think funds the education system? Seriously, how much of public spending do you think the rich pay for?
I once did the math for Brazil, and if we taxed 100% of the income of every millionaire and billionaire here that'd be 7%-10% of public spending.
Public goods are paid by the poor. The idea that they can't afford education, but can somehow afford education AND a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats to run it is just absurd.
When i was in school, tuition at a top tier school was 1300. Tuition at a decent school was 600. Education spending per student in public schools was 800.
If you really cared about the poor AND you disagree that the poor pay the majority of taxed, you'd abolish every single public teaching institution and have the government pay for everyone's private education.
Shut down the public school that costs 800, put people in the private one that charges 600, pay their tuition with the 800 you just saved.
But no, you don't see the left defend that. Because the goal was never education, it was always indoctrination.
I think you could have mentioned you are talking about specific developing country. Things will be vastly different in G7 countries and the best systems out there. You are fighting corruption, inefficiencies and systematic issues. At this point, a slightly more expensive private education might be the best solution.
I will give UK as a counter example. The very rich kids go to schools which cost £50k+ a year and they only meet other rich kids. State spends £7k per pupil a year in the standard school (50% of households don’t even have £50k income before taxes). So at the end of the day you have an exclusive set of people who only met other exclusive people. And they seem to be the ones governing the place, most of them never actually meeting anyone from normal background.
This is not about left vs right, it’s about making sure that talented people are found, are doing the most important jobs in the society and are given all the opportunities to improve their skills. At the moment, in many cases you cannot afford to show your talent (or even discover it) if you don’t have family resources behind you. But UK has a weird fixation against education, especially people from low income backgrounds so unless it’s done at school, many people don’t have a chance.
In any case this is quite complex topic and I don’t think you can cover it by left bad, right good. The left tends to be populist ideology in developing countries but in developed ones, right wing sit in this place.
I'm not talking about any specific place. I'm from Brazil, but i've read about and have met people from other places. In fact i work remotely with Americans and Canadians; and have family in Europe (though contact is scarce i'll admit, and none of them has seen the inside of a school in 20+ years).
The US has charter schools which are public-funded private schools. They always outperform the public ones in every measurable way, while costing between 1/3 and 2/3 per student.
It is about left vs right because the left has a very simplistic idea of what education is: Government putting kids in classrooms and deciding what they can and can't learn. The ministry of education being a de fact ministry of truth.
Some of the right has that same view. But other parts of the right have a more open mind about it: Parents choosing different types of schools, different curriculums, homeschooling as an option, etc.
Informal private schools provide a better education in african slums. Charter schools are better than public schools with thrice the funding in the US. And everywhere in between.
Not to mention how public schools have a dumping effect, pricing cheap schools out of the market and leaving only the expensive ones. Of course you'd think private education is expensive if that has been the case since before you were born. Specially if public schools make a point of teaching how important public schools are.
Sorry but you got some ideological cloud around you and I don’t think there is any point discussing this, it’s my last reply. Systems are different and the best ones will be focused on training critical thinking, independent information analysis and creativity without financial barriers.
I think Finland is quite well regarded in this sense, teachers are independent, they are respected in society and produce comparable results in international testing than asian countries with gruesome reputation. In Finland, kids only do 5 hours a had school without any homework and produce similar results in tests than 9 hours of schooling in China with heaps of homework. In Finland, education is free and some private schools exist but they are not allowed to charge anything.
In general, the nordic countries with high taxes and socialist approach are usually leading the tables in most areas of human development. But I guess thats the indoctrination from young age haha.
Wow, seems like people should have the choice to put their children in a finnish-style school regardless of the country they're in. Kinda seems like a... parental choice kind of thing.
That's my whole point. You should let people try different solutions, and let the people decide what works. And that means getting the government out of it.
Surely if that system is so good people would opt into it right?
Nope if you disagree with them anywhere on immigration or social policies then you are automatically far right. If you disagree with them on economics they'll call you centre right ..
Because 'centre right' is actually just bought out puppet for corporate interests. Funny how many on the so called left are accepting of corporate puppets, but critical of anyone who dares suggest immigration is too high. It's almost like the centre right and centre left are both corporate puppets serving their master's interests.
Oh please. The right only uses immigration as a talking point - the tories and meloni are happy to keep the status quo because it serves their corporate masters. Anti immigration and pro business are incompatible
Yes and being any stripe of "right" necessitates being a corporate puppet. That's my whole point. Only in fantasy can you be pro business but somehow not pro corporate interests. Anyone who gets elected will act this way - believing anything else is just applied No True Scotsman
Lol, no.
If you disagree with them on economics, that means you don't want debt at 500% of GDP. That means less spending on [insert literally anything with a politically correct name here] and therefore literally Hitler.
See it all the time.
Oppose free tampons? Hate women, far right.
Oppose giving teachers a raise every time they go on strike conveniently before an election? Woah there satan.
Oppose buying the first vaccine that comes around, at 15x the price, while another deal with another supplier is already being negotiated? None of that genocide talk here!
Allow private investment in sewer treatment, but only in states where the government failed to do any sewer treatment for the last 50+ years? STFU far right, dying of diarrhea while waiting for MY guy to solve things MY way is how its done over here.
Dont want the central bank controlling interest rates, exchange rates or printing money? That's, like, totes concentration camos brah.
Whatever brand of politics John McCain had before the Tea Party, honestly. That’s a normal conservative for me. Someone who will listen and may end up agreeing with you after a healthy, friendly and long discussion about your differences.
You may not agree with the guy all the time, but you two at least can talk about your differences without instantly screaming at each other.
At least you could explain your opinion and have a healthy discussion with Romney and McCain. You could even change their mind, like when McCain decided not to help repeal the Affordable Care Act. MTG will just scream at you and call you a filthy un-American communist or something similar.
80% of his policies are god awful, like fucking evil (nationalizations, corruption, bans on non-violent stuff, extremely high taxes, propaganda, etc) but the other 20% of his policies are really well aligned with the Hungarian public sentiment. Since the 20% that he gets right concern such existential threats as migration or the war in Ukraine, people keep reelecting him. He knows he can get away with the most blatant favoritism and create whatever unjust laws he wants as long as he represents the will of the people on these few important matters, and that is exactly what he is doing.
So in short he sucks but we don't have any other politician who we trust to go against the tide in EU forums and say the truths those politicians don't want to hear.
Sure?
They're basically called "conservatives", though.
For example in Germany, the CDU is a traditional right party. They're conservative. Importantly they're neither xenophobic nor fascist, as that'd be far-right/ultra-right.
What happens when your center parties get so god damn out of touch and greedy. I say whoever wins, tax the living shit out of the wealthy who were the only ones who has benefited in recent years.
Iirc it’s actually the left in France that has presented a plan to tax the wealthy and even force rich people leaving France to pay a considerable amount of money to do so, it’s pretty cool
It wasn't pretty cool. Wealth tax actually led to less tax revenue being generated due to the amount of wealthy people fleeing which then hurt the economy. This is why they got rid of the wealth tax years ago.
No, im talking about the wealth tax France has already Implemented in 1981 by the socialist party. It was scrapped in 2017 because tax revenue actually went down due to the amount of wealthy people leaving and therefore investment leaving the country. Re introducing it isn't going to help anyone.
So if they want to leave the country and bring their money with them they have to pay a large portion of it? Why does a government have the right to do that, it’s not a transaction or income, that’s a tax on movement.
You can leave with some money like everyone else, it’s not that if you leave on vacation with 1000 dollars you are getting taxed, it’s about moving vast amounts of assets and money out of the country itself, removing them from the country’s economy.
If money was already sitting in their bank account, it’s not in circulation. If they’re sitting on an asset, how’s it going to impact the economy if they move and continue to do so? And again, why does the government have a right to say an individual can’t *move* their money without it getting heavily taxed?
The government has the right to do a lot of things, and they have the right to do government things because they are the government. Just like libertarians believe governments don’t have the right to do what they do, I believe they do have that right, and most people agree otherwise there wouldn’t be governments.
What about the rest of it? I don’t understand why you’re only responding to one point per comment.
And that’s not sufficient reasoning. The problems with this line of thinking is that it assumes the two options are weighted the same, but they’re not. The default assumption is that the government doesn’t have the right to the property of its citizens, you have to demonstrate why it’s different here.
Which is part of the problem, at least here in Germany. The AfD that is on the rise via appealing to the jobless, angry and hopeless, is just about **the** most rich-friendly party around.
On a european level - where their votes are public - they vote **more** billionaire-friendly than the fucking FDP, a party explicitly made by, for and with rich farts.
It's ridiculous, but massive sympathy from Germany's largest private media house has allowed them to present themselves as the "people's party" despite being the **polar** opposite of that.
Because everyone darker than white is illegal by default, in Poland far right are rolling out campaigns attacking any migrants no matter how long they've been living here, working or not, legal or not, doesn't matter.
But that's for visae?
The person they replied to was on about illegal immigration, which **quite naturally** implies there is no visa. And also naturally means no "mass" immigration as visae are limited and restricted both in application processing speed and recovery of "visa stock" based on industry demands and concerns.
As in, visa are neither mass immigration nor illegal immigration. So what (the fuck) are you on about?!
IGNORE, NOT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
Unfortunately, due to the French electoral system, and the liberal/conservative tendency to vote for the right over the left every time, it will be the left wing and the far right on a second round, and unless conservatives vote for the left, the far right has the advantage.
The popular front doesn't need a presidential candidate - Macron remains president - they need a PM. It is confusing, because usually the president has the biggest power, but in this situation the french system switches away from a presidential system to a more parliamentary system, with a PM that needs to find a majority.
Macron is just being France’s David Cameron atm. I’m sure this sudden referendum on Brexit, errr I mean this snap election, will go great and won’t result in a bunch of right wing asshats ruining everything… 🙄
Because there are far left, left, center left, center right, right and far right parties. They are clearly identified and have always been called that.
This is not the usual right wing party of France. This is the party that was founded by waffen SS nazis
The PCF you mean?
There are practical reasons for why it’s considered left and not far left. The main ones being that despite denouncing capitalism, they’ve shied away from the revolutionary ways to establish socialism/communism (which is pretty much a prerequisite for the “far left” classification), or even provide an alternative and *concrete* way to do it. They’ve softened their messaging a lot and they’re quite vague in what exactly will be the system to replace capitalism. Also, they’ve repeatedly joined in **governing** coalitions with bourgeois parties, and in (non governing) coalitions with non-communist parties both internally and in the European Parliament.
Don’t get me wrong, there are far-left parties in France, like the NCA (former LCR) or the LO (Lutte Ouvriére, “Workers’s Struggle”). And nobody doubts their classification as “far-left”. But they’re not like PCF and that much becomes clear. Also, they’re tiny, even NCA, the larger of the bunch.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You really think that 1970s Iran is, and I quote, "the last time Left Unity happened" anywhere in the world?
If you seriously think that a united leftist front for the next French legislative elections will turn France into post-revolutionary Iran, you are an idiot.
Your only reason to speak is to fear monger.
"Extreme left or Right are both bad"
Golly Gee, i wonder wich of the party who want to raise wages and increase Health and Education budgets, and the one who want to ban "citizen of foreign origin" from holding jobs is the bad news...
Bad Left bad, amaright ?
is this "Bloodthirsty, amoral extreme left" with us in the room right now ?
So far the worse the left had was a guy who was condemned for slapping his wife. Once.
Meanwhile the right is full of nazi who beat up political opponents and burn
*town halls*
.
What's amazing is that a huge chunk of the people who say they're interested in supporting Marine Le Pen are *women.*
Maybe they just don't like getting charged with racism after reporting getting raped.
Just need to re-educate them in the indoctrination center - you know - the local school.
Teach them to think they have any rights as *white people* (yuck!) is unacceptable. They'll accept their cumuppance for their slaving past, and not just that, *they'll like it, too* !
Oh, does this sound bat-shit crazy?
These are the opinions regularly expressed on the left's social media pages and accounts.
And you know what they say about politics being downstream from culture.
So good that the people who want common sense laws can be accused of being far right - it not only totally dismisses the horrific hatred and racism on the left - it *excuses it* !
*Score* !
>What's amazing is that a huge chunk of the people who say they're interested in supporting Marine Le Pen are *women.*
No ? Source for that ?
>Maybe they just don't like getting charged with racism after reporting getting raped.
No ? What the fuck are you on ? No one is getting charge with racism for trying to report a rape.
But i'm sure the Extreme-Right who didn't want abortion to be constitutionalized will cherish and help womens reports all the rapes to The Police who is refusing to take them... not.
>These are the opinions regularly expressed on the left's social media pages and accounts.
Are those opinion expressed by the left's in the room with us right now ? Care to give us some links other than "Trust me Bro" and "It Definetly Hapenned to a cousin's brother's friend's roommates' petsiter's canadian girlfriend"....
>
So good that the people who want common sense laws can be accused of being far right - it not only totally dismisses the horrific hatred and racism on the left - it *excuses it* !
The common sense laws of *checks note*...
Banning binational from ever being employed by the state ? Removing inheritance taxes for wealthy peoples ? increasing the police fund but not the Justice's ? Supressing poor people's funds because they are *brown* ?
Yeah,i'f your all your raped-but-called-racist friend will feel a lot more safer after the RN makes sure all the police is filled with macho nazi and the Healthcare is underfunded because all the tax money wasn't taxed...
Iran is not a good exemple : the left allied a far-right party there (is there anyone to call Khomeini a leftist?) against another far-right party (the shah's).
Putting the parties of the New Popular Front in the same basket as the maoists or stalinists is dumb. Even the so-called French communist party isn't really communist anymore : they don't want to seize the means of production, they don't want the proloetarian dictatorship. Heck, they even managed to be considered "right wing" by some vegans and a couple of figureheads from the left.
On top of that, what other choice do we have? The only viable choices are the far-right RN, the president's party (which proved how inefficient they are multiple times) and the left coalition (which includes the socialist party, which isn't as much on the left as it used to be, the FCP and LFI, which is probably the most extreme party on the left and that will be put to pieces by other parties (and by themselves) should they gain too much power).
The Iranian left though nothing could be worst than the Shah so they sold their souls to Khomeini (which is pretty ironic if you ask me). Our left isn't doing the same mistake.
I am French and I am scared of the same thing. For years, I've seen religion taking more and more grounds in my country : Christianity through the right and Islam through the left. I feel like being trapped by two sides which I don't share values with and which will likely harass me if they had more grounds (I am antitheist). I support your views 100% yet I don't know what to do. This current situation is a nightmare for french people not in favour of NFP or RN.
##### ###### #### > # [In a divided France, voters on the left hope to unite against the far right](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-06-23T134308Z_1059287675_RC21H8AP8NZE_RTRMADP_3_FRANCE-ELECTION-PROTEST-WOMEN-1719389723.jpg?resize=1920%2C1440) > > > > _**Names marked with an asterisk have been changed to protect identities.**_ > > **Paris, France –** Across France, tens of thousands of protesters have taken to the streets after President Emmanuel Macron called for [snap elections](https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/6/14/france-far-right-election) in the wake of his party’s defeat at the hands of the far right in the recent [European Parliament](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/10/eu-elections-2024-who-lost-and-won-and-who-was-hurt) vote. > > The demonstrations are against both the hard right and Macron’s decision. > > In Paris, at Place de la Republique on June 15, people climbed the Marianne statue before following the familiar route from Republique to Nation. > > France’s newest wave of rallies was sparked by Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) party winning 31.4 percent of the vote, led by Jordan Bardella. The coalition under Macron’s Renaissance party won just 14.6 percent. > > Justine\*, a student in Paris, has been working on campaigns for several candidates on the left. > > “The RN is a party of hate based on racism and extremism and capitalism. A regime with the far right is also extremely dangerous for women’s rights,” she told Al Jazeera. > > Organisers have been scrambling since Macron called for snap elections. > > “No one was expecting this. It takes a lot to organise everything, especially for small candidates. We end up only having 15 days before they have to register. It’s not really democratic,” Justine said. > > ## ‘A very, very risky gamble’ > > By calling for new elections, which will be held in two rounds on June 30 and July 7, Macron is betting on French voters coming out against the far right and setting a new tone – one of better results for the centre in future elections. > > “It’s a very, very risky gamble,” said Philippe Marliere, professor of French and European politics at University College London. “He will probably lose that election.” > > Macron’s party is unlikely to secure a majority and the nationalist and anti-immigration RN could win even more seats. > > If the RN reaches an absolute majority in France’s parliament, the National Assembly, Bardella could become prime minister. > > “The remarkable result … confirmed the surge of the far right,” Marliere said. “Never before did the far right get over the 30 percent threshold in a national election.” > > For Justine, the French president’s agenda has contributed to “extreme” ideologies becoming normalised. > > “Macron is not entirely blameless. He’s enacted policies that align with the far right and I don’t think he is a president of social rights or human rights,” she said. > > [INTERACTIVE European Union parliamentary elections_1-1718195650](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/INTERACTIVE-European-Union-parliamentary-elections_1-1718195650.png?w=770&resize=770%2C770)(Al Jazeera)The RN has a platform against globalisation and immigration, pushing for stricter border control and fewer ecological policies. But in recent years, voting for the RN has become more mainstream across France. > > “In this country, the far right has become so mainstream and normalised. What scares me the most is that people are still shocked,” Rim-Sarah Alouane, a French researcher in comparative law at the University Toulouse Capitole, told Al Jazeera. > > Some of Macron’s policies, such as his immigration bill, appeal to traditional far-right views. > > “Critics argue that [Macron] has really borrowed from RN textbook policies on immigration, Islam, all the endless culture wars, ‘wokeism’, as the French say,” said Marliere. “People get the feeling that these [ideas] are, in the end, acceptable. People are no longer afraid of voting for the party.” > > Beatrice Chappedelaine, a retired school teacher who lives in Normandy, said she is saddened by politics and working conditions in France. > > “We shouldn’t be surprised that the RN is on the rise, given the insecurity, poverty and indigence of the current government,” said Chappedelaine, who is in her mid-80s. > > Despite her feelings on the state of the country, she will be casting a vote in the snap elections. > > “I’ve always voted. For me, it’s a duty,” she said. > > While she did not reveal who she would vote for, she said it would not be for the RN or the left. > > Meanwhile, experts worry that voter turnout could be low with many away during the holiday season. > > Voter turnout in France for the elections for the European Parliament was 51.4 percent. > > Young voters had high rates of abstention: 59 percent for 25- to 34-year-olds and 51 percent for 18- to 24-year-olds. > > “What worries me is the timing: dissolving the National Assembly when people are going on holidays. Abstention is already very high. The far right won by people not going to vote,” Alouane said. > > ## ‘The left could be the real surprise’ > > The left has formed an alliance, the Popular Front, to try to unite voters. > > Its platform vows to increase wages, lower the retirement age from 64 to 60, offer better protections for asylum seekers and climate refugees, and back stronger climate policies. > > “The left could be the real surprise in this election,” Marliere said. “It is possible that the left comes second [after RN], all parties of the left now aggregated into this coalition called Popular Front.” > > But the coalition does not represent unity. > > “The Popular Front is above all an electoral coalition,” said Marliere. “It’s not that suddenly the left is one bloc and has a new name. Certainly not. It’s there to serve one purpose: to field one single candidate per constituency because if they don’t do so, they’ll be eliminated in the first round.” > > Baptiste Colin, a 29-year-old theatre producer from Lyon, has reservations about the coalition. > > “I think the coalition is possible, but on the left, there is no clear leader. We are missing a strong media personality,” Colin told Al Jazeera. > > [Women hold a placard that reads: "My France to me is not the same as (the France) of those who vote for RN", as people attend a demonstration organised by feminist organisations to protest against the French far-right National Rally (Rassemblement National - RN) party, ahead of upcoming French parliamentary elections, in Paris, France, June 23, 2024. REUTERS/Gonzalo Fuentes](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-06-24T112700Z_1673622350_RC2NH8AEG5WC_RTRMADP_3_FRANCE-ELECTION-BARDELLA-1719240627.jpg?w=770&resize=770%2C515)French far right leader Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella, president of the French far-right National Rally (Rassemblement National – RN) party, leave following a press conference to present policy priorities [Gonzalo Fuentes/Reuters]RN has captured young voters, garnering support from 30 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds and 28 percent of 25- to 34-year-olds in the election on June 9. > > “The left does not feel listened to. I voted for Macron in 2022 and against Le Pen, but I feel like he has pushed the RN to become something more respectable. It seems like today he is saying the RN can govern, and we have to choose between the RN and Macron,” Colin said. > > Some of France’s biggest influencers on social media have come out against the RN, calling on their followers to vote. > > France’s biggest YouTuber, Squeezie, who has 19 million followers, published a post on June 14 saying it was important to “react for the good of all of the country’s citizens against a hateful and destructive ideology”. > > ## Macron’s majority woes > > President Macron’s coalition lost its absolute majority in parliament in 2022, hindering efforts to pass domestic reforms. > > Since then, his government has resorted to sending through legislation without a vote in parliament using Article 49.3 of the French Constitution, including his controversial retirement bill. > > This lack of manoeuvrability to lead as he hoped could be why he decided to dissolve parliament on June 9, according to Marliere. > > “It’s been extremely hard for his party to govern, to pass legislation because there’s no absolute majority,” he said. “I think Macron feels that he hasn’t been able really to govern the way he wanted because of that situation. So his room for manoeuvre was very limited. His wings were clipped, so to speak.” > > Jacques Chirac, a conservative, was the last president to call for snap elections in 1997, when the left won a majority. He then had to spend five years governing with the left. > > Regardless of their political affiliations, French voters are well aware of how critical the coming vote is. > > ***(continues in next comment)***
I like how the media has simplified a very complex political environment as good vs. evil. It illustrates the media bias and the little respect they have for the audience. Can the Good unite against this Evil? Will Marcon destroy the ring at Mount Doom? So dumb.
I mean that's just not the case some of the media specially those sympathetic to macron have also been attackimg the left especially on grounds of anti semitism and fiscal irresponability
I mean the RN was literally founded by Nazi supporters.
I struggle to understand an epistemology where that's a knockdown argument.
What are you confused about? Its not an argument. Its a straight fact.
Yeah, but it's not really relevant to their correctness, is it?
So youre saying their Nazi ties are fine because you agree with them? Im gonna go now.
I'm saying you've fallen victim to the Law of Contagion or Magical Thinking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_contagion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking
LOL They didnt brush hands. Its the same goddamn group led by a woman who was raised pro-fascist by the groups founder and still uses the same rhetoric while being funded by fascists in Moscow. You do you.
Privately owned medias have currently joined hand with the government to jointly attack the left. Turns out corporations and billionaires would rather have racists in power rather than paying more taxes, who knew ? Aside from historians I guess...
What an unbiased comment /s
I'm not the billionaire firing reporters for not being racist enough, Vincent Bolloré on the other hand... "Better Hitler than the Front Populaire" used to be a conservative slogan, funny how it still holds true to this day.
Funny thing about "Mieux vaut Hitler que le Front Populaire" is that you never see the name of the person who said it. Research it on Google. On every article on the subject you will read that some people supposedly said it, but you are never told who or when exactly. Which means it is nothing else than a rumor.
That's not how any of this works, this is the stupidest demonstration I've seen all year. Slogans aren't quotes, they don't necessarily have an identified author, this doesn't make them "rumors", what could possibly lead you to that conclusion ? This one was used by the "Comité des Forges" among others, corporations were eager to support the right-wing rather than the workers, this hasn't changed at all in 2024 so I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate here, yet I can confidently tell you're doing it wrong.
I am simply applying the historical research methodology. In the 1930's there was no internet and a limited telephone use, so people wrote a lot. Influential businessmen for example were exchanging a very large amount of letters. Since there was few radio, and almost no television, newspapers were the nearly unique source of information. They were thriving. There was hundreds of them, a dozens for all the political tendencies. They published on a daily basis a big number of articles. Yet in all those letters and newspapers of the time, no french historians found anything who remotely looks like "Plutôt Hitler que le Front Populaire" or "Mieux vaut Hitler que le Front Populaire" and the likes of it. So as there is no historical basis for that claim, I consider it to be a rumor and an efficient propaganda.
They arent wrong.... at least not in america, not sure about france/european media involvement
This is straight up facts. 80% of the french media is owned by 9 billionaires, and the most influencial among them are directly supporting far right.
The left are antisemitites which is a type of racism.
Except they aren't, crticizing Israel has jack to do with antisemitism. But don't take my word for it, look up who was actually condemned for antisemitism in France for the past 30 years and see what party they are from.
Being antisemitic is a crime in France. No one in the whole of the leftist alliance has ever been charged with that crime. One of the leaders of a leftist party has sued people and won for defamation in regards to people saying he was antisemitic. The right wing however has multiple members who have been sentenced for saying antisemitic things, they harbor neo-nazis and people who deny that the holocaust ever happened. Lets not forget that the rassemblement national was founded by a Waffen SS and the nazis were definitely antisemitic.
That’s a big claim you’re making there. What’s your reasoning?
Macron is not the left this article is talking about. He is the radical right wing.
Different people have different reasons to dislike Muslims, some are racist, some are genuine concern. I feel Left in Europe has disregarded cultural and civil rights concerns and just labelled people racist, leading to not exactly far right surge but at least apathy among the population for their rise. Maybe part of it is being colored from my American lense, but at least EU had done a good job of checking in corporate power, increasing green energy transition and healthcare access, but the liberals lost it partly fueled by anti Israel views of many young voters and now the far right coalition is stronger. Their support for Israel is mixed too, but only because they too seem apathetic to Muslim concerns, but now we might also be losing economic wins because of that.
> I feel Left in Europe has disregarded cultural and civil rights concerns and just labelled people racist Not at all. You fall victim to an indirect effect of the rise of **actually** fascist parties, though: Anything *less* extreme than what they say gets labelled as being the opposite. The whole us-vs-them is a central part of how ultra-right parties do their business, after all. But it's important to note that there's more than two attitudes, for example in regards to border checks there's more than just: * Let everyone in regardless. * Let no one in whatever. Importantly, **what every country ever has been doing virtually for its entire existance is neither of those two**. And no left party actually lets everyone in. As an example, the current government of Germany, despite being led by the SPD and the Grüne, has significantly reduced who is allowed inside and who gets sent away and has intentionally reduced the speed with which people are let (which in itself sends people away as they have to wait for too long). This was a reaction to the issues presented by the big wave of the migrant crisis under the CDU, a party that ought to be far more restrictive. And it was restrictive, but it still let significantly more in than the current, supposedly-less-restrictive government. Yet, as all of these other parties **do let migrants in** - just to varying degrees and with varying restrictions - in a trump-esque move the right has screeched that all of these "Open borders, they let everyone in, they want to replace us!!". It's reduced to 100% vs 0%, when neither has really been used ever instead of edge cases by any country, ever.
Im not saying left in Europe wants unlimited migration, rather that laissez faire approach to Muslim immigrants has turned some people off. That is different. Further like I said reducing all concerns to being scared of brown people is again being disengenous, because you have brown people like Rishi Sunak who share similar views on Muslim refugees but has been open for Indian or Chinese workers.
> rather that laissez faire approach to Muslim immigrants has turned some people off Which isn't really a thing. And importantly, hasn't changed much, other than in fact being tightened massively after 9/11 and the general anti-terrorism shift in politics, and then was only very marginally taken back over the next 5-6 years. But that's kinda what I mean: Where does this idea even come from?
The immigrant crisis was after 9/11, [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911)
I'm confused. Yes, of course, we all know that. But what does stating an obvious truth have to do with this? (edit) Ah, sorry. Come to think about it, you think I associate things *only* with the migrant crisis in the EU. Sorry, my bad, should have been more clear. It varies by country, but immigration and also specifically muslim immigration is not a thing that's particularly bound to the migration crisis, which also produced spikes less noticable than what most people think they would be. Example Germany: * We had a slump of nearly no or actually negative gains from migration prior to ~2005, lasting about 10 years. * Only in 2015 and 2022 did we see spikes in migration, first one was ~20% higher than usual, second ~50%. * 2023 already went back to normal levels. * The only truly concerning thing is that migration as a whole increases (in **and** out) over the years, it has cooled a bit but it is still far higher than it used to be. It's unsure whether this is just due to increased knowledge of the English language (and hence ease of moving countries) and increased global interaciton (and hence couples moving around/together across country borders), or there's a more direct reason that both immigration and exmigration are overall increasing. My key point here is: The migration agenda and stance issues are **not** a thing to be focused overly or even much on the migrant crisis. There's another problem to discuss with that, and that is how to be prepared for such inherently unknowledge events. But as far as handling both immigration and exmigration, the impact of the migrant crisis is not the big relevant thing that we ought to focus on. Hence my comment about 9/11 was about how migration in general was approached by the ruling parties. Sorry, I should have made that more clear.
There is an old joke in germany: Yesterday, 4 left-wing minor parties met to form a union. Today there are 6 left-wing parties.
What does it mean?
Lefties eat themselves.
Splitters!
True. The Right is a cult. Good point. Edit: oh no, the people who nominated a rapist are mad.
And cults are money makers. The Left is broke, bad at PR, and don't get along with each other.
Yup. The right is easily grifted. Many have noticed.
I wish you and the guy you are talking to would Just shut up so that people who want more than internet points could talk about possible solutions.
Leftist infighting. 4 groups of leftists meet to unite and after the event and disagreements they leave even more split.
Is there any right that the left doesn't consider "far"?
RN was recognized as "Far Right" by the State Council, wich isn't the place you find leftist in.
Factuellement incorrecte. The state council did not rule on political qualifications of a political party. They merely ruled it wasn't illegal to state that the RN is far right. They do not imply it is the truth or their view. We do not have to go down to their level of spreading half truths, let the far right have the monopoly on such behaviors Je soutiens l'union et vote à gauche!!
The State Council said i was okay to call them extreme-right, ergo, they agree that the categorization as extreme-right is valid. Or that's, at least,how i see it.
Saying it’s not illegal to say something doesn’t mean you agree with it
The court: You have freedom of speach, you can say anything You: OMG THEY SAID I'M LITERALLY ALWAYS RIGHT!
the RN literraly sued to get the label of "extreme right" off of them, and the state council said it was appropriate and they can't get angry about it. Also, deffamation laws exist.
You could also call them extreme left and the conseil d’etat would come to the same conclusion. It’s still legal
they also said I can say I don't like Chinese food, that doesn't mean Chinese food is bad
God I feel dumber having read this
Their party was founded by actual Waffen SS nazis, they literally attack the constitutional council legitimacy and want to deport french people that descend from immigrants. How is this not far right???
They're also marine le Pen father jean marie le Pen who tortured peoples in the algerian war
And the Democrats were founded by a slave owner that raped his slaves. What relevance does that have to the current nominee
It is much more recent than that, some of the founding members like Jean Marie Le Pen are still alive, it's a tight family with Marine, Jordan, Marion, Louis Aliot etc. Some of THIS YEAR'S nominees have done things such as imitating monkey noises towards black people, or saying things like "africans belong to africa" (clearly hinting at brown people in France...), and countless other things I can't be hassled to list here
> Their party was founded by actual Waffen SS nazis, Who?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bousquet > section leader (Rottenführer) in the Waffen-SS Charlemagne Division > the first treasurer and a founding member of the National Front Note: the national front was renamed into national rally, the original name is national front.
What does that even mean ? If its genuine, literally one major politician frlm what is remaining of the historical right wing party left this morning saying "the party is dead". And the RN , far right party has been fonded by a negationist who was totally assuming his far right label. His daughter is now the president of this successor party and all the same people remain. After european election , they immediatly started negotiation with an other far right party wthat also assume 100% irs label. So no , the left isnt assuming everyone is far right , macron and lepen dissolved the right. And now what is remaining is either right wing centrist with macron or far right under Lepen banner.
Describing the RN as anything other than far-right is just lying to be honest.
that's not true because since the party has been created by nazies everyone assumes they are still far right when that is clearly not the case
2 members and 1 ex members of the party we're facing trial in june 2024 because they had national priority in their programm and many candidate are racist/homophobic, misogynistic and/or anti-semitic.
What’s national priority?
It's to exclude foreigners from socials benefits and publics accommodation ( they also want to forbid sensitive job to those who have two nationality but it's a slippery slope what are sensitive job)
Is there any left they call far left? They have the communist party! Is that not far left?
Dude. I just want Healthcare and a decent education for my kids.
Oof. That's unfortunate. There's only corporatism and austerity on the menu.
"Decent" and "state funded" are mutually exclusive. You want good education, you want low taxes and private schools. You want indoctrination, go ahead with letting politicians decide what can or cant be taught.
> "Decent" and "state funded" are mutually exclusive. >You want good education, you want low taxes and private schools. That’s factually and indisputably wrong. The best Universities in Europe are public and/or state funded. The private and private funded universities are all at the bottom of the rankings. And this holds true if you even include the UK (private unis legally, but publicly funded and run like state unis). Get off your American horse. US is an aberration, an exception not the rule.
In rankings that measure education riiiiight? Oh wait, no. The public ones are #1 in rankings that evaluate quantity of papers produced, or quantity of citations. They're not better. Just bigger.
I don’t get your point. Of course research output and quality plays a role in rankings. Universities are as much research institutions as they are educational ones. Their main goal is to produce (and employ) researchers, not to teach you how teachers would teach students in high school. If you look at a professor’s work schedule, it’s 2/3rds research and research adjacent (ie producing papers, supervising masters and PhD candidates, organising/participating in conferences, etc etc.), and 1/3rd traditional teaching.
My point is that there isn't a single ranking that even takes education into account. Its all 100% academic. And it makes sense. Measuring education quality would require standardized tests, or some weirder measurements such as student satisfaction or unemployment among recent graduates. All are tricky or expensive. So the ranks are 100% just academic. Meanwhile the case for public higher education is 100% education. A negligible amount of people say "we need to fund research" but just about everyone says "we need to fund the next generation of engineers/doctors/etc". If anything this is a huge bait and switch: Everyone voted for education, politicians deliver research instead. Meaning the argument "public colleges get better rankings" is irrelevant in a discussion about public education. Public universities aren't in the "ministry of research", they're in the "ministry of education" in every country i'm aware of. And i wont even get into the discussion of the huge percentage of research that is just "visibility of transmasc women in native populations" and other such junk.
Seems like they educate the drive to the bottom in private systems. Low taxes so public schools are shit and only specific club can access the system. Therefore not driving the society with the most talented people but with the people who can afford it. And then they talk about private education being the best -> I suspect they are not the brightest ones of the flock by the definition, they are just the richest and loudest..
Who do you think funds the education system? Seriously, how much of public spending do you think the rich pay for? I once did the math for Brazil, and if we taxed 100% of the income of every millionaire and billionaire here that'd be 7%-10% of public spending. Public goods are paid by the poor. The idea that they can't afford education, but can somehow afford education AND a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats to run it is just absurd. When i was in school, tuition at a top tier school was 1300. Tuition at a decent school was 600. Education spending per student in public schools was 800. If you really cared about the poor AND you disagree that the poor pay the majority of taxed, you'd abolish every single public teaching institution and have the government pay for everyone's private education. Shut down the public school that costs 800, put people in the private one that charges 600, pay their tuition with the 800 you just saved. But no, you don't see the left defend that. Because the goal was never education, it was always indoctrination.
I think you could have mentioned you are talking about specific developing country. Things will be vastly different in G7 countries and the best systems out there. You are fighting corruption, inefficiencies and systematic issues. At this point, a slightly more expensive private education might be the best solution. I will give UK as a counter example. The very rich kids go to schools which cost £50k+ a year and they only meet other rich kids. State spends £7k per pupil a year in the standard school (50% of households don’t even have £50k income before taxes). So at the end of the day you have an exclusive set of people who only met other exclusive people. And they seem to be the ones governing the place, most of them never actually meeting anyone from normal background. This is not about left vs right, it’s about making sure that talented people are found, are doing the most important jobs in the society and are given all the opportunities to improve their skills. At the moment, in many cases you cannot afford to show your talent (or even discover it) if you don’t have family resources behind you. But UK has a weird fixation against education, especially people from low income backgrounds so unless it’s done at school, many people don’t have a chance. In any case this is quite complex topic and I don’t think you can cover it by left bad, right good. The left tends to be populist ideology in developing countries but in developed ones, right wing sit in this place.
I'm not talking about any specific place. I'm from Brazil, but i've read about and have met people from other places. In fact i work remotely with Americans and Canadians; and have family in Europe (though contact is scarce i'll admit, and none of them has seen the inside of a school in 20+ years). The US has charter schools which are public-funded private schools. They always outperform the public ones in every measurable way, while costing between 1/3 and 2/3 per student. It is about left vs right because the left has a very simplistic idea of what education is: Government putting kids in classrooms and deciding what they can and can't learn. The ministry of education being a de fact ministry of truth. Some of the right has that same view. But other parts of the right have a more open mind about it: Parents choosing different types of schools, different curriculums, homeschooling as an option, etc. Informal private schools provide a better education in african slums. Charter schools are better than public schools with thrice the funding in the US. And everywhere in between. Not to mention how public schools have a dumping effect, pricing cheap schools out of the market and leaving only the expensive ones. Of course you'd think private education is expensive if that has been the case since before you were born. Specially if public schools make a point of teaching how important public schools are.
Sorry but you got some ideological cloud around you and I don’t think there is any point discussing this, it’s my last reply. Systems are different and the best ones will be focused on training critical thinking, independent information analysis and creativity without financial barriers. I think Finland is quite well regarded in this sense, teachers are independent, they are respected in society and produce comparable results in international testing than asian countries with gruesome reputation. In Finland, kids only do 5 hours a had school without any homework and produce similar results in tests than 9 hours of schooling in China with heaps of homework. In Finland, education is free and some private schools exist but they are not allowed to charge anything. In general, the nordic countries with high taxes and socialist approach are usually leading the tables in most areas of human development. But I guess thats the indoctrination from young age haha.
Wow, seems like people should have the choice to put their children in a finnish-style school regardless of the country they're in. Kinda seems like a... parental choice kind of thing. That's my whole point. You should let people try different solutions, and let the people decide what works. And that means getting the government out of it. Surely if that system is so good people would opt into it right?
The far left in France is NPA, LO, communists and anarchists. The PCF is social democratic.
Nope if you disagree with them anywhere on immigration or social policies then you are automatically far right. If you disagree with them on economics they'll call you centre right ..
You just admitted that there are in fact right wingers who won’t get accused of being far right by leftists…
Because 'centre right' is actually just bought out puppet for corporate interests. Funny how many on the so called left are accepting of corporate puppets, but critical of anyone who dares suggest immigration is too high. It's almost like the centre right and centre left are both corporate puppets serving their master's interests.
Oh please. The right only uses immigration as a talking point - the tories and meloni are happy to keep the status quo because it serves their corporate masters. Anti immigration and pro business are incompatible
Because they're not 'far right'. Any politician who is pro immigration is a corporate puppet. Any corporate puppet is pro immigration.
Yes and being any stripe of "right" necessitates being a corporate puppet. That's my whole point. Only in fantasy can you be pro business but somehow not pro corporate interests. Anyone who gets elected will act this way - believing anything else is just applied No True Scotsman
Lol, no. If you disagree with them on economics, that means you don't want debt at 500% of GDP. That means less spending on [insert literally anything with a politically correct name here] and therefore literally Hitler. See it all the time. Oppose free tampons? Hate women, far right. Oppose giving teachers a raise every time they go on strike conveniently before an election? Woah there satan. Oppose buying the first vaccine that comes around, at 15x the price, while another deal with another supplier is already being negotiated? None of that genocide talk here! Allow private investment in sewer treatment, but only in states where the government failed to do any sewer treatment for the last 50+ years? STFU far right, dying of diarrhea while waiting for MY guy to solve things MY way is how its done over here. Dont want the central bank controlling interest rates, exchange rates or printing money? That's, like, totes concentration camos brah.
Whatever brand of politics John McCain had before the Tea Party, honestly. That’s a normal conservative for me. Someone who will listen and may end up agreeing with you after a healthy, friendly and long discussion about your differences. You may not agree with the guy all the time, but you two at least can talk about your differences without instantly screaming at each other.
I remember how they demonised McCain and Romney back then lol. And it was only a little more than a decade ago.
Oh I did the same. But like, shit man, I’d take them over anyone like MTG.
In 10 years you'll take MTG over whoever comes next. The current threat is always the worst threat.
At least you could explain your opinion and have a healthy discussion with Romney and McCain. You could even change their mind, like when McCain decided not to help repeal the Affordable Care Act. MTG will just scream at you and call you a filthy un-American communist or something similar.
How do you feel about Victor Orban?
80% of his policies are god awful, like fucking evil (nationalizations, corruption, bans on non-violent stuff, extremely high taxes, propaganda, etc) but the other 20% of his policies are really well aligned with the Hungarian public sentiment. Since the 20% that he gets right concern such existential threats as migration or the war in Ukraine, people keep reelecting him. He knows he can get away with the most blatant favoritism and create whatever unjust laws he wants as long as he represents the will of the people on these few important matters, and that is exactly what he is doing. So in short he sucks but we don't have any other politician who we trust to go against the tide in EU forums and say the truths those politicians don't want to hear.
This dude just said the people keep electing Orban..... HAHAHAHAHAH
Sure? They're basically called "conservatives", though. For example in Germany, the CDU is a traditional right party. They're conservative. Importantly they're neither xenophobic nor fascist, as that'd be far-right/ultra-right.
Everything right of Lenin is far right in the current year
My point exactly, yeah
What happens when your center parties get so god damn out of touch and greedy. I say whoever wins, tax the living shit out of the wealthy who were the only ones who has benefited in recent years.
Good luck if you expect the far right to tax the wealthy, they work for them.
Iirc it’s actually the left in France that has presented a plan to tax the wealthy and even force rich people leaving France to pay a considerable amount of money to do so, it’s pretty cool
It wasn't pretty cool. Wealth tax actually led to less tax revenue being generated due to the amount of wealthy people fleeing which then hurt the economy. This is why they got rid of the wealth tax years ago.
Was? This is a plan presented by a party not in power, you are talking about something else
No, im talking about the wealth tax France has already Implemented in 1981 by the socialist party. It was scrapped in 2017 because tax revenue actually went down due to the amount of wealthy people leaving and therefore investment leaving the country. Re introducing it isn't going to help anyone.
It’s never cool to extort people for their money so they can leave. Is that what you’re describing?
They would be able to travel like anyone else, it’s about moving their fortune. So no, they would not be extorting them so they can leave
So if they want to leave the country and bring their money with them they have to pay a large portion of it? Why does a government have the right to do that, it’s not a transaction or income, that’s a tax on movement.
You can leave with some money like everyone else, it’s not that if you leave on vacation with 1000 dollars you are getting taxed, it’s about moving vast amounts of assets and money out of the country itself, removing them from the country’s economy.
If money was already sitting in their bank account, it’s not in circulation. If they’re sitting on an asset, how’s it going to impact the economy if they move and continue to do so? And again, why does the government have a right to say an individual can’t *move* their money without it getting heavily taxed?
The government has the right to do a lot of things, and they have the right to do government things because they are the government. Just like libertarians believe governments don’t have the right to do what they do, I believe they do have that right, and most people agree otherwise there wouldn’t be governments.
What about the rest of it? I don’t understand why you’re only responding to one point per comment. And that’s not sufficient reasoning. The problems with this line of thinking is that it assumes the two options are weighted the same, but they’re not. The default assumption is that the government doesn’t have the right to the property of its citizens, you have to demonstrate why it’s different here.
The only party that wants to tax the wealthy is the left.
Which is part of the problem, at least here in Germany. The AfD that is on the rise via appealing to the jobless, angry and hopeless, is just about **the** most rich-friendly party around. On a european level - where their votes are public - they vote **more** billionaire-friendly than the fucking FDP, a party explicitly made by, for and with rich farts. It's ridiculous, but massive sympathy from Germany's largest private media house has allowed them to present themselves as the "people's party" despite being the **polar** opposite of that.
Stop supporting mass and illegal immigration from thrid-world countries if you don't want to see them win.
Most leftists don’t support mass illegal immigration, where do you get the idea they do?
Because everyone darker than white is illegal by default, in Poland far right are rolling out campaigns attacking any migrants no matter how long they've been living here, working or not, legal or not, doesn't matter.
Most leftists in the world maybe, but surely not in France.
What do you mean most in the world; many would welcome refugee seeker which would be considered legal under international law
Look at the program from the NFP? It starts the immigration topic by saying the standard visa should now be 10 years by default.
Sounds pretty legal to me
But that's for visae? The person they replied to was on about illegal immigration, which **quite naturally** implies there is no visa. And also naturally means no "mass" immigration as visae are limited and restricted both in application processing speed and recovery of "visa stock" based on industry demands and concerns. As in, visa are neither mass immigration nor illegal immigration. So what (the fuck) are you on about?!
Ah OK I misread the part about illegal. Well, the NFP still plans massive regulation of illegal immigrants, so here we are
Found the nazi. /s
Who supports illegal immigration?
IGNORE, NOT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS Unfortunately, due to the French electoral system, and the liberal/conservative tendency to vote for the right over the left every time, it will be the left wing and the far right on a second round, and unless conservatives vote for the left, the far right has the advantage.
This isnt a presidential election, there isn't a single second round, but one per county
I was wrong on the most basic thing, God... Yeah, I got confused because of talks about popular front needing a presidential candidate.
The popular front doesn't need a presidential candidate - Macron remains president - they need a PM. It is confusing, because usually the president has the biggest power, but in this situation the french system switches away from a presidential system to a more parliamentary system, with a PM that needs to find a majority.
Your analysis is right but you'll get downvoted for the "unfortunately".
I don't think so. Well , I hope so at least.
good luck to my brothers and sisters in the nouvelle front populaire! with love - from germany mon coeur bat à gauche
French here, mein Herz schläght links I wish for the NFP to win. There's so much mess to fix and it will not be billionaires' lapdogs who will do it
I love how the so-called "free thinking" reditors in this comment section have been so effectively manipulated by propaganda. What a farce.
Macron is just being France’s David Cameron atm. I’m sure this sudden referendum on Brexit, errr I mean this snap election, will go great and won’t result in a bunch of right wing asshats ruining everything… 🙄
Funny they say "left" and "far-right". They have the communist party on the left! Its at least as far-left as the other guys are far-right.
Because there are far left, left, center left, center right, right and far right parties. They are clearly identified and have always been called that. This is not the usual right wing party of France. This is the party that was founded by waffen SS nazis
The PCF you mean? There are practical reasons for why it’s considered left and not far left. The main ones being that despite denouncing capitalism, they’ve shied away from the revolutionary ways to establish socialism/communism (which is pretty much a prerequisite for the “far left” classification), or even provide an alternative and *concrete* way to do it. They’ve softened their messaging a lot and they’re quite vague in what exactly will be the system to replace capitalism. Also, they’ve repeatedly joined in **governing** coalitions with bourgeois parties, and in (non governing) coalitions with non-communist parties both internally and in the European Parliament. Don’t get me wrong, there are far-left parties in France, like the NCA (former LCR) or the LO (Lutte Ouvriére, “Workers’s Struggle”). And nobody doubts their classification as “far-left”. But they’re not like PCF and that much becomes clear. Also, they’re tiny, even NCA, the larger of the bunch.
United left, now that's a joke I haven't heard in a while!
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Never give up,Never surrender…good luck to you you lovely lefties
> "A regime with the far right is also extremely dangerous for **women’s rights** " she told **Al Jazeera.** The joke is writing itself 😂
[удалено]
You really think that 1970s Iran is, and I quote, "the last time Left Unity happened" anywhere in the world? If you seriously think that a united leftist front for the next French legislative elections will turn France into post-revolutionary Iran, you are an idiot.
[удалено]
Your only reason to speak is to fear monger. "Extreme left or Right are both bad" Golly Gee, i wonder wich of the party who want to raise wages and increase Health and Education budgets, and the one who want to ban "citizen of foreign origin" from holding jobs is the bad news... Bad Left bad, amaright ?
Wow, Iran? You really had to dig hard to justify supporting the far right
[удалено]
is this "Bloodthirsty, amoral extreme left" with us in the room right now ? So far the worse the left had was a guy who was condemned for slapping his wife. Once. Meanwhile the right is full of nazi who beat up political opponents and burn *town halls* .
[удалено]
Seek help lol
What's amazing is that a huge chunk of the people who say they're interested in supporting Marine Le Pen are *women.* Maybe they just don't like getting charged with racism after reporting getting raped. Just need to re-educate them in the indoctrination center - you know - the local school. Teach them to think they have any rights as *white people* (yuck!) is unacceptable. They'll accept their cumuppance for their slaving past, and not just that, *they'll like it, too* ! Oh, does this sound bat-shit crazy? These are the opinions regularly expressed on the left's social media pages and accounts. And you know what they say about politics being downstream from culture. So good that the people who want common sense laws can be accused of being far right - it not only totally dismisses the horrific hatred and racism on the left - it *excuses it* ! *Score* !
>What's amazing is that a huge chunk of the people who say they're interested in supporting Marine Le Pen are *women.* No ? Source for that ? >Maybe they just don't like getting charged with racism after reporting getting raped. No ? What the fuck are you on ? No one is getting charge with racism for trying to report a rape. But i'm sure the Extreme-Right who didn't want abortion to be constitutionalized will cherish and help womens reports all the rapes to The Police who is refusing to take them... not. >These are the opinions regularly expressed on the left's social media pages and accounts. Are those opinion expressed by the left's in the room with us right now ? Care to give us some links other than "Trust me Bro" and "It Definetly Hapenned to a cousin's brother's friend's roommates' petsiter's canadian girlfriend".... > So good that the people who want common sense laws can be accused of being far right - it not only totally dismisses the horrific hatred and racism on the left - it *excuses it* ! The common sense laws of *checks note*... Banning binational from ever being employed by the state ? Removing inheritance taxes for wealthy peoples ? increasing the police fund but not the Justice's ? Supressing poor people's funds because they are *brown* ? Yeah,i'f your all your raped-but-called-racist friend will feel a lot more safer after the RN makes sure all the police is filled with macho nazi and the Healthcare is underfunded because all the tax money wasn't taxed...
Iran is not a good exemple : the left allied a far-right party there (is there anyone to call Khomeini a leftist?) against another far-right party (the shah's). Putting the parties of the New Popular Front in the same basket as the maoists or stalinists is dumb. Even the so-called French communist party isn't really communist anymore : they don't want to seize the means of production, they don't want the proloetarian dictatorship. Heck, they even managed to be considered "right wing" by some vegans and a couple of figureheads from the left. On top of that, what other choice do we have? The only viable choices are the far-right RN, the president's party (which proved how inefficient they are multiple times) and the left coalition (which includes the socialist party, which isn't as much on the left as it used to be, the FCP and LFI, which is probably the most extreme party on the left and that will be put to pieces by other parties (and by themselves) should they gain too much power). The Iranian left though nothing could be worst than the Shah so they sold their souls to Khomeini (which is pretty ironic if you ask me). Our left isn't doing the same mistake.
Braindead take. Please never cook again.
I am French and I am scared of the same thing. For years, I've seen religion taking more and more grounds in my country : Christianity through the right and Islam through the left. I feel like being trapped by two sides which I don't share values with and which will likely harass me if they had more grounds (I am antitheist). I support your views 100% yet I don't know what to do. This current situation is a nightmare for french people not in favour of NFP or RN.