La Gauche est mort, mais elle ne s’en est pas encore aperçue: Luc Rosenzweig decortique ce grand cadavre à la renverse

Quand j’ai commencé à travailler le dossier al Durah, j’ai rencontré une personnalité extraordinaire, Luc Rosenzweig, ancien journaliste au Monde, et l’auteur, entre autres essais, de Lettre à mes amis propalestiniens, un argument puissant contre la folie d’une gauche qui soutient des fascistes juste parce qu’ils sont des palestiniens.

Il vient d’écrire un article sur la mort de la gauche qui ne cède rien à la vanité de ces gens qui se prennent comme l’avant-garde morale du monde (et donc, déteste surtout les juifs, leurs concurrents).

C’était la Gauche
Quand c’est fini, c’est fini

18 février 2009
Luc Rosenzweig

Le “Longtemps, je me suis couché de bonne heure” de bon nombre de Françaises et de Français à la recherche de leur temps perdu pourrait bientôt être : “Longtemps, j’ai voté à gauche…” Les plus talentueux pourront alors commencer à évoquer dans la forme artistique de leur choix un monde disparu, pour le plus grand plaisir esthétique des générations futures.

La gauche est en train de sortir de l’Histoire, mais on la retrouvera, à coup sûr dans les romans, au cinéma, en BD, objet de mémoire et de thèses universitaires. Constater son décès n’est pas chose facile: son cœur a cessé de battre, son cerveau de fonctionner, ses poings de frapper, mais elle passe encore pour vivante dans les lieux où s’élaborent les représentations – instituts de sondages, IEP, services politiques des grands médias.

Je dirai plutôt que son coeur bat plus fort, moins son cerveau fonctionne.

gaza war protest
Gaza War protest San Francisco, January 2009. Photo Zombietime.

Et pourtant, tout observateur un peu attentif de la vie politique et intellectuelle de l’Europe et de ses dépendances devrait s’apercevoir que nous sommes en train de changer de paradigme.

La coïncidence du binôme sociologique dominant/dominé avec le binôme politique droite/gauche n’a certes jamais été totale, mais elle a tout de même permis, aussi imparfaite soit-elle, de structurer de manière plutôt satisfaisante la vie politique, et sociale et intellectuelle des démocraties au XXe siècle. Chacun la déclinait à sa manière, latine, scandinave ou britannique pour le plus grand bonheur des classes moyennes.

On lui doit une prospérité sans précédent, le développement inégalé dans l’Histoire des libertés publiques et individuelles, la protection collective contre les aléas de la vie, et surtout la fin de la guerre civile intra-européenne.

Ce modèle a néanmoins échoué à s’imposer à l’échelle mondiale : on serait bien en mal de distinguer où se situent la gauche et la droite, ou même le milieu, dans les régimes autoritaires et/ou corrompus qui sévissent dans la majorité des pays siégeant à l’ONU. Adversaire, puis régulatrice du capitalisme, la gauche n’est plus aujourd’hui que spectatrice d’un monde qu’elle a d’abord renoncé à changer, puis à comprendre.

Les premiers à déserter la gauche, en France et dans les pays comparables, ont été les ouvriers: ce sont eux qui ont pris en pleine figure l’échec tragique et, n’en déplaise à Badiou, sans doute définitif, de l’utopie communiste. Non seulement ils n’ont pas rejoint en masse les rangs de la social-démocratie, mais ils ont constitué, pendant les deux dernières décennies, les gros bataillons du Front National, qui fut un temps le premier parti ouvrier de France. Partout en Europe on voit surgir des partis populistes faisant leur pelote sur les angoisses du petit peuple.

Parallèlement, on pouvait constater que dans aucune des nouvelles démocraties nées de la chute du communisme, la gauche réformiste ne se constituait en porteuse légitime des intérêts des ouvriers et des salariés. Les partis dits sociaux-démocrates de ces pays étaient soit des usines de recyclage de l’ancienne nomenklatura bureaucratique, soit des versions centre-européennes du blairisme britannique. Dans le reste du monde, l’exception remarquable du Brésil de Lula ne doit pas masquer que la gauche politique s’est littéralement évaporée au Japon et en Corée, et qu’on ne saurait discerner la moindre émergence d’une social-démocratie dans les “petits dragons” asiatiques que sont Taïwan, Singapour ou l’Indonésie. Quant à la Russie, à l’exception d’un Parti communiste s’appuyant sur les vieux apparatchiks déshérités, le concept même de gauche y a disparu de l’espace public.

Israël, toujours un peu en avance sur le mouvement, avait montré la voie: en moins d’un quart de siècle la gauche travailliste se ne trouva plus représenter que les nantis, les intellectuels, les artistes et les enseignants, alors que les défavorisés votent Likoud, Shas, ou Lieberman…

Mais revenons chez-nous. Abandonnée des ouvriers, des marginaux, des exclus, appuyée sur sa seule base sociologique, la petite bourgeoisie intellectuelle, la gauche française fit encore un temps illusion. Le jospinisme des années 1997-2002 était la parfaite incarnation de cette nouvelle donne idéologique et politique interne à la gauche: sous la direction éclairée de la petite bourgeoisie intellectuelle, incarnée par les petits maîtres des sciences humaines triomphantes, la classe ouvrière allait accéder au paradis des 35 heures, des loisirs de qualité, de la multi-culturalité et du métissage portées au rang de valeurs suprêmes de la République.

Seulement voilà: à plus de temps libre les ouvriers et assimilés préféraient plus d’argent, leurs choix esthétiques les tenaient éloignés des spectacles subventionnés, et ils se montraient indécrottablement rétifs au remplacement du référent national par son équivalent européen. De plus, ils n’étaient pas insensibles au discours sécuritaire de la droite et de l’extrême droite en raison de la dégradation de leurs conditions de vie dans les périphéries des grandes villes.

Faut pas oublier le role des immigrés, surtout les immigrés les plus aggressifs, c-à-d, les musulmans.

Le résultat est bien connu : le 21 avril 2002 le ciel tombait sur la tête d’une gauche dès lors ramenée au plus petit dénominateur commun d’un antifascisme surjoué.

Voir le phenomène parallele en Angleterre.

Seuls le mode de scrutin majoritaire et la prééminence de l’élection présidentielle allaient permettre au Parti socialiste de rester un recours pour l’expression de la mauvaise humeur chronique de l’électeur français (l’effet essuie-glace, qui chasse les sortants à chaque scrutin). Mais pendant qu’une nouvelle génération de notables socialistes s’installait confortablement aux commandes des villes, des départements et des régions, la droite et l’extrême gauche pillaient les vieilles armoires de la gauche pour rendre leurs boutiques plus attrayantes.

Depuis quelques années, Sarkozy, Cohn-Bendit et Besancenot se sont précipités sur tous les symboles laissés en déshérence. À moi Guy Môquet et le mythe du communisme patriotique ! À toi la flamme de mai 68 et le grand bond en avant sociétal ! À lui les derniers hochets de la panoplie du petit révolutionnaire. Une lutte féroce s’est engagée pour l’hégémonie politique et idéologique sur la petite bourgeoisie intellectuelle, celle qui est en train de se battre pour le maintien de ses positions économiques et symboliques dans la société, dans une joyeuse foire de surenchères corporatistes des “touche pas à…” mon école, ma fac, mon labo, mon hosto, mon posto…

Sur les rangs, le PS canal historique (Martine Aubry), le PS canal mystique (Ségolène), la gauche allemande (Mélenchon qui se joue la fable de Lafontaine), la gauche verte, européiste et altermondialiste du trio Cohn-Bendit, Bové, Besset, et la petite bourgeoisie qui se rêve en réincarnation du prolétariat de papa rassemblée derrière le facteur et ses parrains de la IVe Internationale. Aussi longtemps qu’un vainqueur, en la personne d’un leader crédible et rassembleur ne sera pas sorti de cette mêlée confuse, la droite peut gouverner tranquille, avec cet inconvénient, pourtant, de ne pas avoir de contradiction suffisamment stimulante pour exercer intelligemment le pouvoir.

C’est ce qui a conduit la droite sarkozienne de piquer, en plus des idées, des gens à gauche, et pas les plus mauvais. C’est d’autant plus simple qu’ils n’ont besoin d’aucun recyclage pour devenir immédiatement opérationnels, comme Kouchner ou Besson ou Jouyet: le pragmatisme sans rivage du président, son usage purement rhétorique du discours idéologique libéral, et son absence totale de révérence envers l’héritage gaulliste donne à la présence des “ralliés” une efficacité qui va au-delà de la petite manœuvre politicienne habituelle.

Pour retrouver le chemin du peuple, la gauche devra, elle, subir une telle mutation qu’elle en sortira méconnaissable. Si cela se produit, son premier geste, dès son retour au pouvoir, devra être d’élever une statue à Nicolas Sarkozy.

A présent, il y a 91 réactions.

Intéressant qu’il aie pu écrire tout cela sans parler du problème de l’islamisme jihadiste et son alliance ignoble avec la gauche.

29 Responses to La Gauche est mort, mais elle ne s’en est pas encore aperçue: Luc Rosenzweig decortique ce grand cadavre à la renverse

  1. Michelle Schatzman says:

    Yes, interesting that he could skip the mention of the islamo-leftist alliance…

    A recent story: last week on France-Culture radio (a state-owned radio which tries to be cultural and sometimes succeed), there was a talk show about “communautarisme”. The talk show started by picking on Jews because, these days, they do not put much their children in state schools. In particular in the 19th district of Paris, which was the theater of much violence and discrimination against Jews, particularly in state schools – and this is well known. The above reason was never mentioned in the broadcast. Both guests were jewish, and I am fairly sure that the two hosts of the talk show are not antisemites (i have listened to this show for a long time now). So, the Jews were accused of being “communautariste”, which can be translated as “locking themselves in their community and happy with it”. At no point did any of the four people on the air mention the words islam or muslim or any synonym.

    So I was shocked, and I wrote to the site of the show, saying that the fact that they did not mention muslim “communautarisme” and they kept hitting on the jewish “communautarisme” was basically a metonymy: they thought really of hitting the muslim “communautarisme”, but they could not name it.

    One of the talk show hosts (I guess that he is the senior partner) answered my mail and confirmed my analysis. He also added that he receives hate mail and feels that he is being intimidated. He also sent me an example of hate mail. It was bad, but not terrible. But definitely threatening.

    So, yes, there is a significant level of intimidation with respect to criticism of islam related behavior in France.

    There is one site, which consistently criticizes islam related behavior. It is called “Riposte Laïque”

    http://www.ripostelaique.com/spip.php?page=sommaire

    but, unfortunately, it has a tendency to confusion, mixing together criticism of religious impact in the public domain (of which I approve) and atheist or antireligious propaganda (which is basically another religion and bores me to death).

    There are also very rightist sites; usually they are quite disgusting, close to the extreme right and I keep away from them.

    “Causeur” is a nice enough site. Rozenzweig wrote an article on the demonstrations against Israel during the Gaza operation:

    http://www.causeur.fr/allez-les-beurs,1635

    The article is written in the Shvejk fashion: pretending that news are good when they are pretty bad.

    There is also a good piece on journalism in Gaza, and more generally in the Palestinian territories:

    http://www.causeur.fr/gaza-sans-journalistes-et-alors,1619

    So, I don’t know why Rozenzweig skipped the islamo-leftist alliance. Maybe he wanted to focus and not to be distracted. I don’t know!

  2. oao says:

    it may no longer be dead, but it it socializes and islamizes the west.

  3. oao says:

    it may be dead, but it it socializes and islamizes the west.

  4. oao says:

    it may be dead, but it it socializes and islamizes the west, now including the US.

  5. E.G. says:

    What’s left is not respectable.

  6. Eliyahu says:

    * * * * * *
    It’s interesting that he pointed out that the working class has deserted the “left.” But I’m afraid that it’s not exactly dead, not enough, although of course it is not an independent entity, at least in the USA, that thinks for itself using the old Marxist or DeLeonist or Norman Thomasist criteria. Today, the US “Left” is mostly a manipulated body of public opinion which much resembles the Nazis in its prejudices about Jews. On France, LR might have mentioned the pragmatic, opportunistic recipes of Pascal Boniface, a socialist party “penseur”, who cynically urged the party to support the Arabs against the Jews because there are more Arabs than Jews in France and the SocParty needs them as voters.
    * * * * *

  7. nelson says:

    What actually takes place in Brazil is not well known outside the country. Brazil’s not a leftist exception. What’s difficult, however, is to find another case with which to compare it precisely, but once that is done, one will see that the country follows a trajectory similar to that described above.

    To begin with, Brazil has quite a varied economy and, thus, it is not as easy to control, and through it, the whole country, as it is for a Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, a place where whoever controls the flow of oil has the power. Then, the governments that came before Lula made most necessary reforms and, thus, in a period of growth, the Worker’s Party, by simply leaving the economy untouched, benefited from the international situation.

    But why didn’t Lula immediately try to change the course of the economy? Because he was happy with a working economy that allowed him to spend his and his party’s time and efforts in the conquest of the state machinery.

    On the other hand, he used the resources generated by the industrialized and developed Southern states (where his party is weak or altogether rejected by the voters)to buy, through direct subvention, the votes of the Northeast. In this sense at least, his party doesn’t represent the real workers, but rather the workless poor of the most underdeveloped regions.

    The actual core of his party, however, besides the urban intellectuals, artists, teachers and state employees is the aristocracy of the unionized workers, and this in a country where only a minority of workers (many of them white-collars) are actually unionized. These and the members of the ultraleftist clandestine parties from the time of the military dictatorship are the Worker’s Party’s main apparatchikis.

    Thus, Lula would quite happily behave like Chávez or Evo Morales, but the country is too big and complex and goals such as this can be attained only quite slowly. Even if Lula’s party loses the next 2 or 3 presidential elections, much of the country’s power will still be in the hands of a state machinery controlled by its members.

  8. oao says:

    and atheist or antireligious propaganda (which is basically another religion and bores me to death).

    this is one of the most stupid common comments i hear, and I hear a lot.

    it just caused me to disregard anything you write.

  9. oao says:

    but to confess, i never cared much about your comments anyway.

  10. Joanne says:

    The whole notion of communitaurisme reminds of the time I spoke in Paris to a deputy of Chirac’s party at the time, the RPR. He himself was of Tunisian descent, so perhaps he had the fervor of the converted. But it was strange. He denied that any citizen of France should have any interest or perspective other than that of a Frenchman. If you’re gay, Muslim, Jewish, a female, an immigrant, or from a region with its own culture or language, it shouldn’t matter. Otherwise, you’re guilty of what he called “particularisme.”

    He said that whatever needs these communities have for representation they already have via their National Assembly deputies. I mentioned that NA deputies represent geographic districts, not cultural or economic groupings. He wasn’t moved.

    Then I said that, if blacks in the US south in the 1950s and 1960s had relied on their Congressmen represent them, they’d be a lot less better off today. It was just as well that they had their own leader in Martin Luther King. The bureaucrat had nothing to say in response.

    I actually have ambivalent feelings about identity politics; I think it’s a bit overdone. But this instance reminded me of what can happen when there is too little identity politics.

    As for the left, I don’t think that it has disappeared, but it is in a state of flux. With the decline of the manufacturing sectors in the West, traditional Marxism makes little sense. That doesn’t mean there isn’t economic inequality and exploitation. In fact, they’re rampant, especially in the USA. But there’s a need to recast theories of the left in order to update them.

    The left has alienated much of the working class, first in the US and later in Europe. It has become the province of the affluent and fashionable, so it’s no wonder that working-class issues have gone by the board in favor of “boho” issues like women’s rights, political correctness, “tiermondisme,” and the environment.

    The focus on anti-Zionism may be another sign of the intellectual weakness of left-wing ideology. Given the fact that the left is currently unwilling or incapable of developing a coherent philosophy or program, the perennial campaign against Israel may be serving as a substitute.

  11. Cynic says:

    Nelson,

    Even if Lula’s party loses the next 2 or 3 presidential elections, much of the country’s power will still be in the hands of a state machinery controlled by its members.

    Much like the situation the US experiences? Teacher’s Union etc.

  12. nelson says:

    “Much like the situation the US experiences? Teacher’s Union etc.”

    Worse: they’ll be controlling much of the pension funds and a large part of the fixed budget. Civil service in Brazil is proportionally much larger than in the US thanks, in good part, to all the state companies created during the military dictatorship and now controlled by the left and their clients.
    Up until the government immediately preceding Lula’s, for instance, telecomunications were state-owned.

  13. andrew says:

    To Michelle,

    I fully agree with your comment. I remember a rather hilarious instance, years ago, in which someone on a radio was very displeased with the idea (which never
    materialized) that immigrants should be allowed to vote
    on local elections, even (why not ?) become mayors.
    To express his anger, he asked the rhetorical question
    “what would be the meaning of having, say, a Danish
    mayor in a French village ?”

    Was this really what he had in mind ?

    Much more seriously, Mrs Alliot-Marie, Minister of the Interior, always qualifies as “violences intercommunautaires” incidents (as you have recalled,
    these have happened in numbers in Paris 19 recently)
    in which young Jews, alone or in small groups, have
    been subjected to harassment or even beaten. This kind
    of utterances seems to me cowardly and unresponsible.

  14. Cynic says:

    Nelson,

    Maybe they will catch up to Brazil?
    Starting with nationalizing the banks and controlling what Detroit’s big 3 put on the market there will soon be some Estatais to contend with. :-)
    And as the PT seems to be in relation to Israel so it seems to be the case as the Obama admin pulls the wool over American eyes and goes along with Durban II.

    The U.S. delegates had made no objection to a new proposal to nail Israel in an anti-racism manifesto that makes no other country-specific claims.

    The reality, however, was nothing of the sort. Instead, Obama’s Durban II team slipped easily into the U.N.’s anti-Israel and anti-Jewish environs, taking the approach that “fitting in” was best accomplished by staying silent.

    A lot of similarities creeping in.

  15. oao says:

    Much like the situation the US experiences? Teacher’s Union etc.

    it’s simply amazing to see how alibama adheres to saul alinsky’s method of stealth revolution, and how easy that is with a gullible public. even the corporate ruling class and some of the conservative bloggers don’t get it.
    they keep boasting that the market/economy is tanking and that this will sink obama and the dhimmicrats.

    but bringing down the market and economy is their very objective!!!!! then the middle class and the ruling class will be desperate for govt help–just watch the banks and large corps beg for handouts. control the banks and you control capital and thus the system.

    with the rich finished, capital controled and the welfare expanded, ho will want the republicans back to cut budgets, cut welfare and return the market? even they won’t be able to inflict so much pain by doing that.

    finita la comedia, folks.

  16. oao says:

    Civil service in Brazil is proportionally much larger than in the US

    just watch it grow under alibama.

  17. oao says:

    here’s a must read on the alibama/alinsky connection and what can be expected:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obamas_schadenfreude.html

  18. oao says:

    and here’s an excellent example of how even the conservative pundits have not a clue about what’s being done.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/opinion/24brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

    looks like alinsky is smiling in his grave.

  19. oao says:

    a taste of the american future:

    http://www.solomonia.com/blog/

  20. oao says:

    here’s a sane blogger about the 1B aid to ghaza:

    ==========
    This reminds me of those Verizon ads…Can you love me now?…Can you love me now?…Now?…

    The City of Boston may get $125M from the stimulus package, but we’re running over there to give money to a terror state that hates us so that they can spend their own money on…other things: US Pledges $1B Stimulus Package… For Gaza
    ===========
    http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2009/02/almost-1-billion-in-american-aid-for-gaz/index.shtml

  21. nelson says:

    Another US/Brazil similarity: the strongest Brazilian opposition party, the PSDB, which would be called liberal in the country, in contrast to the leftist PT, is at least as divided as the GOP is nowadays, and as unable to fight the party in power But there’s a topic in which the PSDB is worse than the GOP: its foreign policy is basically indistinguishable from the PT’s. Nobody in the PSDB would have backed the invasion of Iraq, for instance, nor the WoT. And the more or less liberal media, which is seen as hostile and right-wing by the PT, is not only anti-Israeli and pro-Arab: its recent coverage of the Gaza skirmish actually verged on anti-Semitism. There’s only one good thing that has been happening: the PT’s most viable candidates for the sucession of Lula have been, one after the other, sacrificed to give cover to the boss’s many financial and political scandals.

  22. Cynic says:

    nelson,

    So Lula’s son became a millionaire;
    Biden’s son was involved with someone accused of Securities and Exchange Commission accusations of fraud and apparently laundering the money of a Mexican Cartel chief.

    Nice way to lobby without being an official lobbyist.

    What’s it? En famile?

  23. oao says:

    here’s evidence for my argument that the US is not a capitalist free market system, but a rather corporate welfare system that privatizes profits and socializes costs:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fa89be08-02aa-11de-b58b-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

    the public is gullible enough to ignore the massive failures–which occur like clockwork every so many years–and remember only the in-between years which create an illusion of efficient free market.

    the system has built into it massive failures to be refunded by the taxpayers, not to mention the tons of govt subsidies and contracts awarded to corps.

    it is rather a distortion of capitalism and free markets. but that’s what both the govt and the corps mean when they defend and protect free markets.

    americans have always lived under the illusion that their system is capitalist and free market. it is the combination of govt and corps that protect the system at taxpayer’s expense and it is this system that has been causing the descent of america both internally and externally.

  24. oao says:

    but alibama has different ideas.

    here’s a must read:

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8491

  25. oao says:

    and more:

    http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2009/02/obamawading-in-it-hip-deep.html

    here’s the best of left-islamism for you in one man.

    god help us, and i’m an atheist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>