Since the re-election of Emmanuel Macron, Jean-Luc Mélenchon has been campaigning to become Prime Minister. This idea of ​​a “cohabitation” with a President whom he will have contributed to having elected still raises serious questions about the nature of the ideological bloc which is taking shape: macro-Melenchonism.

The bowl, the childhood disease of melenchonism

Admittedly, in Mélenchon’s strategy, there is the desire to obtain positions and gain access to power. One does not do politics full-time for forty years without aspiring to ever more glitter and more responsibilities.

In his wake, Mélenchon pulls behind him a multitude of people who look like him: the Corbières and Garrido, the Autains and others, are ready for many, and many ideological contortions to justify accepting a post in a government appointed by the most bourgeois, most technocratic, most socially contemptuous president we have known in a long time.

We will not otherwise understand the concessions that the former follower of the Grand Orient of France, brother Mélenchon, also accepts vis-à-vis Islam, the veil, and Islamism more generally. The National Assembly is worth a hadith…

The Trotskyist origins of Melenchonism

In my opinion, it would be an error of meaning to settle for an opportunistic reading of the strategy that is emerging, on the left, around France Insoumise (ER: Melenchon’s party), to share power with Emmanuel Macron. A deeper reality explains why a Mélenchon can imagine being the Prime Minister of a Macron, when he could not imagine being the Prime Minister of a Le Pen.

This reality is due to the Trostkyist origins of Mélenchon, and to his deep conviction that the revolution must be global (i.e. international) and not take place in a single country.

The press has recently recalled Mélenchon’s initial commitment to the International Communist Organization a great deal: there is therefore no point in going back to it.

Above all, it must be remembered here that the disagreement between Trotsky and Stalin concerned the world ambition of the Bolshevik revolution. Stalin considered that it had to be successful in a single country before extending it. Trotsky advocated permanent revolution and the overcoming of borders.

The irreconcilable difference between the late Communist Party and Melenchonism lies in this approach. We must never forget that Melenchonism is by nature a globalism attached to the permanent revolution, that is to say to a permanent tensioning of the populations.

A logic of chaos close to the Great Reset

Many admirers of Melenchon’s undeniable rhetorical talent have not understood the chaotic dimension by nature of the guru. In Melenchonism, we find the old conviction that the world revolution is the creator of a new world. Chaos is creative.

In itself, this strategy is not far from the Schwabian Great Reset, according to which it is necessary to take advantage of pandemics and wars to reorganize the planet around multilateral structures based on Big Government.

We will come back in more detail a little later on these ideological similarities of circumstance. But it seems essential to me to note that Emmanuel Macron, as a good practitioner of the Great Reset, himself governed for five years in a universe of chaos, which he himself often created.

On this point, the resemblance between the two men is disturbing, and one can think that macro-melenchonism is an ideology of circumstance perfectly adapted to our time and to the desires of the caste.

Globalism and Europeanism are the two breasts of macro-melenchonism

But the points of convergence between macronism and melenchonism do not stop there.

In practice, Mélenchon has taken over, without qualms, the momentary totems of globalization.

This is for example the case of compulsory vaccination, which he declared, in February 2022, that he wanted to apply rigorously .

On the European question, the proposals of the NUPES , the left-wing rally launched by Méluche, are not lacking in spice either:

Admittedly, the two formations “have different histories with European construction”, according to this text, “but we share a common objective: to put an end to the liberal and productivist course of the Union and to build a new project at the service of the ecological bifurcation and solidarity. “We are talking about disobeying for some, of derogating temporarily for others”, distinguishes this document, but “we will do it with respect for the rule of law”, and “the government that we will form  (…) cannot have as a policy the exit from the Union, nor its disintegration, nor the end of the single currency”.

The union of the left in Mélenchon mode therefore validates both the euro, the Union, and the derogations from the principle of free competition.

It is therefore the Europe of crony capitalism that is proposed, and, there again, there is not a world of difference between Macronism and Melenchonism. At most a difference of degree and “franchise” on the subject.

But on closer examination, Macron’s European policy is based on the same logic: belonging to Europe, but derogations of all kinds from collective rules, especially on the single market and public spending.

A Green Big Government Strategy

In reality, the two men converge on the return of the Big Government advocated by Klaus Schwab, which gives them a real ideological proximity.

The justifications for this conversion of Davos to massive state intervention in the economy are well known. They are based on the need to finance the “ecological transition” which must break with productivism.

Here, another point in common between Davossian globalism and Melenchonism!

We know the rest: the State, according to Davos as according to Mélenchon, must invest massively in ecological planning which will essentially consist of using taxpayers’ money to enrich private service providers.

We showed yesterday, with the example of Thierry Solère , how private companies enriched themselves thanks to this ecological transition. This is precisely the program of Mélenchon, like that of Macron, like that of Biden and many others in the West.

The error would be to believe that macro-melenchonism would be the alliance of the carp and the rabbit. It’s quite the opposite ! These two schools of thought strongly converge in the vision of the Great Reset to which the globalized caste has become addicted.

A very Islamophile secularism

We remember here Macron declaring his admiration for a veiled woman. This is the Macronist conception of secularism.

On this point, unsurprisingly, the agreement should quickly be reached with the Mélenchon team.

A common social logic

One might think that Macronism and Melenchonism diverge on social issues. We know Mélenchon’s hostility to the retirement at 65 proposed by Macron, and his hostility to the El-Khomri law, which paved the way for derogations “in peius” from the Labor Code by majority company agreement.

Behind these real differences lies, in my opinion, a more complex and subtle game.

First of all, we must not forget that pension reform is a commitment made before the European Union which does not delight anyone. Macron could not be sorry to exonerate himself from his promise under the pretext that he is forced into a complicated cohabitation.

On the question of company agreements, there will remain a real divergence… but it is not sure that it matters greatly to Emmanuel Macron, who had evaded the subject at the start of the five-year term with a few ordinances of which Mélenchon did not want to repeal.

There is therefore room for negotiation between the two men, which would make the program acceptable.

Social assistance, do you want some here?

Beyond these occasional disagreements, the two men should find themselves on the modern monetary theory, which we regularly mention in our columns .

According to this theory prized by Klaus Schwab, the State should not hesitate to go into debt to stimulate consumption through a policy of helicopter money.

Macron has implemented it extensively (without clearly assuming it as such) with whatever it takes. Mélenchon will have no problem pursuing it, especially with the raising of the minimum wage.

The Eurasian temptation?

There remains an apparent important point of divergence between the two men: the Atlanticist strategy.

Macron, in his time, deplored the weight of the deep government in the French technostructure, which prevented him from establishing a constructive dialogue with Russia. The American Deep State did what was necessary, after the Chirac five-year term, so that the French ally no longer escaped it.

A cohabitation with Mélenchon would give him, on this point, a little oxygen to better endorse the theory of European defense that he has pleaded several times without real success.

Unquestionably, Macron will not go so far as to endorse Mélenchon’s Eurasian project, if indeed it is sincere. But he could use his Prime Minister to claim more European independence.

In short, it is indeed a very Great Reset-compatible, globalist bloc that macro-melenchonism is beginning to draw. At least you can’t say you didn’t know.

************

Source