Preamble

Here comes the timeLaughter and songsLosing unionsIt is now spring.It's the joyful country.Bitter politiciansMonsters not so niceYes, it's union negotiations for future elections.

If onlyOur partiesWanted to uniteEverything would beMuch more cheerfulAnd for each one, the elections would be a success.

For the past 3 months, the group of Unsubmissive France and the Socialist Party in my city has been trying to collaborate, in order to present a common list to the local elections of next year. And the least that can be said is that it is going badly and that we did well to start a year in advance. It's simple, I have no words to describe the trench war that are each of our exchanges.

There is no trust between the two groups and no one dares to open up for fear of breaking the fragile structure that we are trying to build and of finding ourselves presenting two left-wing lists in a town where the right-wing candidate has been elected in the first round for 60 years.

And me, not fully aware of the situation, I barge in with my big boots on the WhatsApp group created for his municipal elections and I unfilteredly voice my opinions, naively believing that I am speaking to somehuman beings and not to partsNeedless to say I made quite an impression.

But beyond the rather uninteresting ups and downs during this discussion, I have written a number of comments which form an analysis that I find interesting of the PS. So I am going to share it with you.

SmallQuick digression:As an AI, I need actual text content to translate. Please, provide a sentence or text for the translation.I specify for the fanatic free-spirits, that in our LFI group, we use the free social network Matrix to communicate, but the dinosaurs of the PS took our proposal to migrate to our tools very poorly.

Yes, we have reached such a level of distrust that mEven such a basic request is seen by the PS as a maneuver by the LFI to take control of the union. OWe therefore had to resign ourselves to using this tool, which does not respect our personal data and excludes our members who do not have a smartphone (there is only one but when he...This text appears to be incomplete or not in a recognizable language. Could you please provide more context or the correct text?.

The call to lay our differences flat

Here is the first message that I published:

Me, I think that the real issue we should be discussing is not XXXX, but the reason why we are tearing each other apart over such a secondary issue. From my point of view, the reason is a total lack of trust and agreement on why we are together.

I will speak on my behalf, but I think my reservations are shared by many rebels.

Me, I am here to promote my ideas. Winning the elections is for me, one means among others and not an end. Unity is necessary to win, however, if to have unity, it is necessary to defend the exact opposite of my ideas, then I prefer to lose.

Objectively, the RN has only lost its elections, but its intransigence and consistency have allowed it to impose its disgusting ideas in the public debate to the point that even supposedly left-wing governments feel obliged to implement its racist and authoritarian program. If the left had a similar fate, it would not bother me.

All these lengthy digressions to say that on a personal level, my only requirement to be part of a group is that it commits to defending certain minimal left-wing values (democracy, solidarity, ecology, fighting against harassment, discrimination, and the extreme right).

And given that the Socialist Party (PS) has, over the last 20 years, violently opposed its values, there is a legitimate distrust from the rebels towards the PS. In order to break this mistrust, I think it would be useful if you could confirm to us that you do not agree with the neo-liberal, authoritarian, and racist policies defended by your party over the past decades.

And, I find it would be good if the people from PS (Socialist Party) who don't like France Insoumise would also plainly express what scares them about France.Unsubmissive. For me, no trust is possible if we are not at least a minimum honest with each other.

Attention, frank does not mean violent, vexing, or even harassing. If you find my communication violent, I invite you to tell me and possibly to indicate how I can correct the situation.

Explanation on why I think the PS is racist, authoritarian and neoliberal.

After the fact, it was obvious, but at the time, I wasn't expecting to cause such an uproar at all. Actually, I say it was obvious, but IEven today, I don't understand their reaction.

My comrades from LFI have tried to explain to me that they have what is called a party spirit and that they take any criticism of the PS as a personal attack.

It's a feeling that for me is quite hard to imagine, but why not. The fact is they felt insulted and asked me to delete my message. To which I replied this:

Your reaction to my comment surprised me a lot and your request to delete my comment presents me with a dilemma.

On one hand, I think that I don't have to judge others' feelings or tell them what they should feel, and if some people feel hurt or attacked by one of my comments, then yes, I should delete it (democracy or freedom of speech is not about hurting others).

But, on the other hand it was not an insult. Saying that the NPA is communist or that the RN is fascist, it's not an insult to their member, but a generally agreed upon description of the policies these parties support.

Even if it does not necessarily please their member, I think it is important to be able to describe the politics supported by their parties. Especially when speaking to their member. If an anti-fa finds himself a member of the RN, it may hurt him to tell him that the RN is fascist, but it would not be doing him or the community a service to refrain from addressing the subject in his presence.

And more generally, telling a person that you think they're wrong can hurt them, but it's important to do so. For me, the right reaction in these cases is to say, 'I disagree and here's why'.

Then each one presents their arguments until there is one who says:

• 'Sorry, I made a mistake'

• 'or 'in your argumentation poses a problem for me, but here I do not know what to respond, you have not convinced me but let's stop this debate while I reflect on it'

• "or 'I do not agree but I don't have time to debate it'"

And, it's valid for the LFI.

It's not just an excuse that I made up to be able to bash the PS. Saying that there is a problem of anti-Semitism on the left and more specifically in the LFI, it does not necessarily please its members, but I think it's true and it's important to say it.

And, I must specify that just because anti-Semitism is instrumentalized by the right, and of course the far right is a thousand times more anti-Semitic and dangerous for Jews than the left, it doesn't mean we should refrain from discussing this issue. On the contrary, it's precisely because this problem of anti-Semitism is manipulated by our enemies that it becomes urgent to talk about it and deal with it.

But let's get back to the topic. My solution to this dilemma is to add another layer. More seriously, it's to explain why I think that the Socialist Party is neoliberal, racist, and authoritarian.

Then, to delete his two comments, if you still wish to do so despite his explanations. However, if you respond to the arguments, rephrase my words or distort them, I will not delete them, even if you ask. Or else you will also have to delete your own responses (but that becomes a bit ridiculous and complex)

The PS is neoliberal.

I think that the Socialist Party is neoliberal, because I have never heard any economist or political scientist describe the economic policy of the Socialist Party since the austerity turn in 1983 as anything other than neoliberal. And, since the 2000s, this is the economic policy openly supported by the party leaders. The labor law, Hollande's pension reform, research tax credits,... These were not social-democratic policies.

By the way, I take this opportunity to recommend the lectures by economist David Cayla on neoliberalism:Decline and fall of neoliberalism They are really great.

The PS is racist.

I think that the Socialist Party (PS) is racist because every time it has been in power, it has pursued racist policies and its leaders regularly make racist comments without being reproached by other PS leaders or activists. Of course, the racism of the PS is not at the same level as that of the National Rally (RN).

But, this does not change the fact that the Socialist Party (PS) has a racism problem that is not recent. I remind you that until the military coup that allowed De Gaulle to return to power, it was the ancestor of the PS: the SFIO that led the Algerian War. And throughout the colonial period, the official position of the French left was that civilization needed to be brought to its so-called barbarian natives (using cannon shots if necessary). And, this position has not evolved much over the decades.

In order to prove my point, I could cite the numerous racist remarks by Manuelle Valls, his proposed law on nationality forfeiture which provoked the resignation of the dangerous extremist Wokist, Christiane Taubira. I could cite the support of some bigwigs of the PS like Hidalgo for the Republican Springs, despite this group's openly racist positions and its alignment with the ideas of the RN. But this would be like shooting fish in a barrel and opting for the easy way out.

At the Place, I am going to share this article from UJFP on the reaction of the Mitterrand government to the strikes in the automobile industry from 1982-1983: https://ujfp.org/la-gauche-et-talbot-comme-tournant-politique-raciste-et-reactionnaire/

The PS is authoritarian.

Finally, I will briefly talk about the authoritarian character of the PS. On this subject, I admit to being less sure of myself as this turn is recent and not assumed by the PS.

Nevertheless, I was shocked by the security laws adopted by the Hollande government in the name of the fight against terrorism (the 2015 Intelligence Act, the 2016 Law reinforcing the fight against organized crime and terrorism and especially the abominable and particularly deadly 2017 public security law aptly nicknamed the "license to kill" law). And this despite their voters having been strongly opposed to them and at the time many experts on the subject told them that these laws were useless in combating terrorism or crime. And moreover, from my point of view, they were right, because apparently, these laws had no effect against these two scourges (but I don't have the means to have anything other than an impression about these subjects).

I was shocked by the use of these laws by the Dutch government to suppress the environmental movement, particularly during the COP21 in Paris.

I was shocked by the use of the police as a private militia to suppress opposition to labor laws through violence. I was shocked byThe use of 49.3 to force this issue (while on gay marriage, they made sure not to use the 49.3 even though there, it would have been perfectly legitimate).

In short, if I think the Socialist Party is authoritarian, it's because of its exercise of power under Hollande and solely because of that. I admit it's a weak argument, but the Hollande government went so far in its authoritarianism during its term and it was so little criticized within the Socialist Party afterwards, that I can't help but consider it's now an official position of the party.

Critical return

After publishing this very long comment, I received many responses of little interest and some interesting criticisms. I will post these criticisms and the responses I made to them.

Review 1: If PS=RN what the hell are you doing here?

First of all, I was told: "...Personally, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion, I don't even understand that if XXXX thinks that the PS is a racist and authoritarian party, what he came to do at the meetings.. I personally never go to meetings with RN people in order to collaborate to create a list....."(the rest of the post is really not interesting)

My answer: it's that I do not consider the racism of the PS or the antisemitism of the LFI equivalent to that of the RN.

The problem, I think it is raised by the speaker of this Mediapart program:We, French, Jews, from the left We lack words to describe the different forms of racism. To describe people who think that Jews are supportive of each other, and those who say that Jews must be exterminated because they want to dominate the world, we have just one word: 'anti-Semitism', even though these are different realities. It's the same with racism. We have only one word, but multiple ways of being it. The racism of the Socialist Party (PS) has nothing to do with that of the National Rally (RN). It is, in large quotes, more acceptable.

And, to answer your legitimate question, if I attend meetings even though I think the PS (Socialist Party) is racist and that I am a member of the LFI (France Insoumise) despite its anti-Semitism, it's because I believe that's the best thing I can do to fight against racism, anti-Semitism, neoliberalism... In short, to promote my ideas, which I hope, largely align with yours. To paraphraseGeorge E. P. Box:All parties are problematic.but some are useful. The PS and the LFI are, to put it politely, big piles of shit, but I think it is useful to get involved in order to defend our ideas.

And let's not lie to ourselves, I do it because I love it. I adore politics.

Review 2: A rebel who criticizes the authoritarianism of the Socialist Party, it's the pot calling the kettle black.

I was also told:

"...calling them authoritarian, it's quite funny coming from a nonconformist (or related, I'm not quite sure). I applaud your sense of humor..." (the rest of the post does not credit the author)

My answer is:

I agree with you that LFI also has an authoritarianism problem that makes me fear its promise of a sixth republic will not be fulfilled if Mélenchon comes to power.

However, just because the LFI has an authoritarianism problem, does not mean that the PS has none. That would be far too simple.

But, I understand that what you really mean is that LFI has no right to judge PS on this subject, given its own mistakes. And there, I agree with you.

However, my goal was not to judge, but to analyze and understand, so that we can act (at our level) to solve his problems. As the saying goes, "Once does not constitute a habit," I will paraphrase Manuel Valls: explaining is not judging.

Conclusion

The conclusion of all this is that my LFI colleagues laughed a lot, that the head of the local PS section called the informal leader of the local LFI section, on a Sunday to ask her to muzzle me and help him put out the fire before all the PS members leave the group.

The problem being that the said leader of the rebels was too busy devouring entire packets of popcorn to respond favorably to this request.

But in the end, on the rebellious side, the consequences of this sequence are rather judged as positive (at least in my presence). We will see how it evolves. The answer in 2026.