Catégorie : Non classé

  • Le « New York Times » sur Emmanuel Macron

    President Emmanuel Macron of France speaking at the Élysée Palace in Paris this week. President Emmanuel Macron of France speaking at the Élysée Palace in Paris this week.

    President Emmanuel Macron of France is liberalism’s new poster boy. Hailed as the answer to Europe’s populist tide, he has brought a buzz back into French diplomacy by facing down President Trump and President Vladimir Putin of Russia. “The Macron method,” a leading European think tank gushed recently, is the new Third Way, threading the needle between technocracy and populism.

    At home in France, it’s a very different story. A recent poll found that Mr. Macron’s popularity fell by 14 points in August, after a fall of 10 points in July. Only 40 percent of respondents said they were satisfied with the president’s performance.

    To be fair, Mr. Macron never had much popular support to begin with. In the first round of the presidential election in April, when the vote was split among four main contenders, he won just under 24 percent. (By comparison, François Hollande received 28 percent of the vote in the first round in 2012. Nicolas Sarkozy won 31 percent in 2007.) Mr. Macron won the second round handily, but only because he was the lesser-evil candidate in the runoff — his competitor was Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right populist National Front party.

    Electoral arithmetic explains only so much. Mr. Macron’s popularity suffers from something more fundamental: Macronism. His entire political project has been far too focused on his personality. Much of his appeal has come from his youth, his dynamism, his good looks and his oratorical skills. This hyper-personalized approach always carried the risk that once his charm wore off, there would be nothing left for his supporters to like, which is exactly what is happening.

    Since taking office, Mr. Macron has put off many people by trying to recapture the grandeur of the presidency. In a phrase that may stick to him for the rest of his time in office, he said he wanted to make the presidency more “Jupiterian,” comparing himself with the powerful Roman god Jupiter, who ruled the skies. When he brought the Senate and Parliament together at the Versailles palace and spoke to them about his ambitions for the presidency, many in France bristled at the monarchical overtones.

    This arrogant attitude about power has destroyed the anti-establishment, upstart image that Mr. Macron cultivated during the campaign. The post-ideological platform on which he ran is starting to reveal itself for what it really is: an emptiness at the heart of his political project.

    President Emmanuel Macron of France is liberalism’s new poster boy. Hailed as the answer to Europe’s populist tide, he has brought a buzz back into French diplomacy by facing down President Trump and President Vladimir Putin of Russia. “The Macron method,” a leading European think tank gushed recently, is the new Third Way, threading the needle between technocracy and populism.

    At home in France, it’s a very different story. A recent poll found that Mr. Macron’s popularity fell by 14 points in August, after a fall of 10 points in July. Only 40 percent of respondents said they were satisfied with the president’s performance.

    To be fair, Mr. Macron never had much popular support to begin with. In the first round of the presidential election in April, when the vote was split among four main contenders, he won just under 24 percent. (By comparison, François Hollande received 28 percent of the vote in the first round in 2012. Nicolas Sarkozy won 31 percent in 2007.) Mr. Macron won the second round handily, but only because he was the lesser-evil candidate in the runoff — his competitor was Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right populist National Front party.

    Electoral arithmetic explains only so much. Mr. Macron’s popularity suffers from something more fundamental: Macronism. His entire political project has been far too focused on his personality. Much of his appeal has come from his youth, his dynamism, his good looks and his oratorical skills. This hyper-personalized approach always carried the risk that once his charm wore off, there would be nothing left for his supporters to like, which is exactly what is happening.

    Since taking office, Mr. Macron has put off many people by trying to recapture the grandeur of the presidency. In a phrase that may stick to him for the rest of his time in office, he said he wanted to make the presidency more “Jupiterian,” comparing himself with the powerful Roman god Jupiter, who ruled the skies. When he brought the Senate and Parliament together at the Versailles palace and spoke to them about his ambitions for the presidency, many in France bristled at the monarchical overtones.

    This arrogant attitude about power has destroyed the anti-establishment, upstart image that Mr. Macron cultivated during the campaign. The post-ideological platform on which he ran is starting to reveal itself for what it really is: an emptiness at the heart of his political project.
    Mr. Macron’s two big policy goals are fixing the economy and fixing Europe. He has gone so far as to describe his economic policies as a “Copernican revolution,” but he is merely pushing France a little farther down the road of labor market deregulation and fiscal austerity, a path well trodden by other countries.

    The new president says he is determined to make France a “start-up nation,” borrowing the vapid parlance of Silicon Valley. This has won him the support of venture capitalists and tech billionaires but has yet to convince the wider French public. Silicon Valley’s libertarian social contract, with its cavalier attitude toward inequality, sits uneasily with a population raised on France’s postwar social-democratic traditions.

    His main goal is to reduce France’s unemployment rate, which at around 10 percent remains stubbornly high. He hopes to do this by reforming the labor code. One of the new measures is a cap on the damages that courts can award workers claiming wrongful dismissal, a move intended to give employers more confidence in hiring. Another would allow companies with fewer than 50 employees to negotiate contracts without having to go through trade unions. The French far left has called this a “social coup d’état,” but the president has been careful not to give in entirely to the business lobby.

    What really matters is the endpoint. Any sustained fall in unemployment in France would be welcome, but the experiences of other countries suggest it comes at the cost of new kinds of inequality. In Germany, labor market reforms have led to a proliferation of “mini-jobs,” part-time work that is lightly regulated and has taken the place of full-time jobs in some sectors. In Britain’s highly deregulated labor market, record employment levels exist alongside low productivity, stagnating wages and a proliferation of short-term contracts. Is this the future France wants?

    Not since the economic boom of the 1950s and ’60s has capitalism in Europe been dynamic enough to combine high levels of employment with long-term material gains for the masses. Today, choices involve painful trade-offs. Mr. Macron’s economic policies favor employers over workers and chip away at what remains of the French welfare state.

    But fearful of giving his program any actual political content, the president wraps up his reforms in the European flag. He tells French voters that only if they make these sacrifices at home, the rest of the European Union — especially Germany — will take them seriously and give France a better deal.

    Mr. Macron’s European plans include a common budget and finance minister for the eurozone. His ideas have received warm words from Berlin, and there are signs that such a deal could be possible after Germany has its federal elections on Sept. 24. But if Chancellor Angela Merkel wins, her mandate will not be for a European fiscal union where German tax revenues are placed in a common European pot. She has given her support to only a very modest version of what Mr. Macron is proposing. The payoff for all of France’s sacrifice at home will be small — and the president will surely be no more popular than he is now.

    Mr. Macron’s success in June’s presidential election has shaken up the moribund political landscape in a deep and lasting way. For that, he deserves thanks. But as a political project, Macronism is little more than rhetoric and hubris, backed up with conventional neoliberal policies. For now, Mr. Macron is still the darling of the global liberal elite, but his growing unpopularity gives us a better picture of what he has to offer.
    Mr. Macron’s two big policy goals are fixing the economy and fixing Europe. He has gone so far as to describe his economic policies as a “Copernican revolution,” but he is merely pushing France a little farther down the road of labor market deregulation and fiscal austerity, a path well trodden by other countries.

    The new president says he is determined to make France a “start-up nation,” borrowing the vapid parlance of Silicon Valley. This has won him the support of venture capitalists and tech billionaires but has yet to convince the wider French public. Silicon Valley’s libertarian social contract, with its cavalier attitude toward inequality, sits uneasily with a population raised on France’s postwar social-democratic traditions.

    His main goal is to reduce France’s unemployment rate, which at around 10 percent remains stubbornly high. He hopes to do this by reforming the labor code. One of the new measures is a cap on the damages that courts can award workers claiming wrongful dismissal, a move intended to give employers more confidence in hiring. Another would allow companies with fewer than 50 employees to negotiate contracts without having to go through trade unions. The French far left has called this a “social coup d’état,” but the president has been careful not to give in entirely to the business lobby.

    What really matters is the endpoint. Any sustained fall in unemployment in France would be welcome, but the experiences of other countries suggest it comes at the cost of new kinds of inequality. In Germany, labor market reforms have led to a proliferation of “mini-jobs,” part-time work that is lightly regulated and has taken the place of full-time jobs in some sectors. In Britain’s highly deregulated labor market, record employment levels exist alongside low productivity, stagnating wages and a proliferation of short-term contracts. Is this the future France wants?

    Not since the economic boom of the 1950s and ’60s has capitalism in Europe been dynamic enough to combine high levels of employment with long-term material gains for the masses. Today, choices involve painful trade-offs. Mr. Macron’s economic policies favor employers over workers and chip away at what remains of the French welfare state.

    But fearful of giving his program any actual political content, the president wraps up his reforms in the European flag. He tells French voters that only if they make these sacrifices at home, the rest of the European Union — especially Germany — will take them seriously and give France a better deal.

    Mr. Macron’s European plans include a common budget and finance minister for the eurozone. His ideas have received warm words from Berlin, and there are signs that such a deal could be possible after Germany has its federal elections on Sept. 24. But if Chancellor Angela Merkel wins, her mandate will not be for a European fiscal union where German tax revenues are placed in a common European pot. She has given her support to only a very modest version of what Mr. Macron is proposing. The payoff for all of France’s sacrifice at home will be small — and the president will surely be no more popular than he is now.

    Mr. Macron’s success in June’s presidential election has shaken up the moribund political landscape in a deep and lasting way. For that, he deserves thanks. But as a political project, Macronism is little more than rhetoric and hubris, backed up with conventional neoliberal policies. For now, Mr. Macron is still the darling of the global liberal elite, but his growing unpopularity gives us a better picture of what he has to offer.

    Correction: September 7, 2017
    A previous version of this article misstated the date for Germany’s federal elections. They will be held on Sept. 24, not Sept. 25.

    Chris Bickerton (@cjbickerton) is a lecturer in politics at Cambridge University and the author of “The European Union: A Citizen’s Guide.”

     

  • Une photographie de Cyril Semenoff-Tian-Chansky

    Une magnifique vue (dans l’esprit de Vermeer)  sur un coin du Plessis Robinson par le photographe Cyril Semenoff-Tian-Chansky, début août 2017

    du bureau de cyril Tian-Chanski à Plessis-Robinson

    du bureau de cyril Tian-Chanski à Plessis-Robinson

  • Les années 1939- 1950 à Mouscardès et Bordeaux (suite)

    JB René 1939
    Jean-Claude, Franck et leur père René Marcadé devant Jean-Beylet (début 1939)

     

    jb école groupe jean claude 001
    L’école de Mouscardès vers 1942 (Jean-claude est au troisième rang le 3ème à partir de la droite)

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    jb 4
    Jean-Claude, sa mère Andrea et son père René Marcadé à Bordeaux (fin des années 1940)

     

     

    jb 3
    Noémie (La Dauna), Daniel et Hélène Marcadé, Bernard, Odette et Franck Marcadé, un cousin, devant Jean-Beylet ( début années 1950)
    jc 1950
    Jean-Claude et Robert, le copain de l’oncle Daniel, évadé avec lui de Regensburg pendant la guerre ( devant Jean-Beylet vers 1950)
  • Films à Paris (juin 2017)

    Trois films, un magnifique, un deuxième passionnant, un autre exécrable : la dernière réalisation de Wajda Powidoki [traduit en français par « Les fleurs bleues »], un film allemand Lou Andreas-Salomé  et un film anglais The Young Lady d’après la nouvelle de Leskov Une lady Macbeth du district de Mtsensk.

     Le film posthume de Wajda qui porte un titre polonais qui peut être traduit par « images rémanentes », ce qui n’a pas paru très commercial aux promoteurs et ont préféré un titre fleur bleue (un bouquet de fleurs bleues joue en rôle dans le film). Définition de « image rémanente » dans wikipedia :

    « Une image rémanente ( afterimage en anglais) est une illusion optique qui continue à apparaître après que l’exposition de l’original a cessé. C’est la propriété d’une sensation visuelle qui persiste après la disparition du stimulus ; ce dernier étant un facteur qui agit sur une cellule, un organe ou un organisme en provoquant une réponse musculaire ou nerveuse. »

    Le sujet est l’histoire tragique de Władysław Strzemiński, un grand créateur suprématiste-uniste polonais qui tient tête au système policier de la Pologne devenue communiste stalinienne en 1946. On voit toute l’horreur de la situation des êtres humains, en particulier des  artistes qui ne se soumettent pas à la dictature d’un parti unique.

    Ce film devrait être montré dans la Russie d’aujourd’hui, car on voit toute une partie de l’opinion de ce pays « réhabiliter » Staline, en oubliant l’asservissement et les crimes de ce régime qui prétendait faire le bonheur du peuple… 

    Le film Lou Andreas-Salomé retrace, avec de belles images documentaires, la biographie de cette femme russe qui a été dans l’orbite de Nietzsche, qui l’a aimée follement et  ne s’est jamais remis du refus de Louiza Goustavovna von Salomé de lui appartenir, comme elle l’a refusé aux autres hommes (même à son mari légal), sauf à Rainer Maria Rilke avec lequel elle a vécu des amours torrides (le film ne montre pas qu’elle a entraîné le grand poète autrichien dans sa Russie natale). Elle fut aussi dans l’orbite de Freud. Le film débute avec l’héroïne à la fin de sa vie, quand elle vit recluse pendant le nazisme, menacée à chaque instant d’être arrêtée, et le fil de sa vie se déroule au fur et à mesure de ses souvenirs depuis sa jeunesse à Saint-Pétersbourg. La réalisatrice du film ne se contente pas de l’aspect hautement romanesque de la vie de Lou Andreas-Salomé, elle fait passer également certains aspects intellectuels et philosophiques de sa personnalité.

    capture-decran-2015-12-03-a-11-10-15
    RILKE ET LOU ANDREAS-SALOMÉ

    Le film anglais The Young Lady est tout simplement une horreur, dans sa prétention de transposer la magnifique nouvelle  de Leskov Une lady Macbeth du district de Mtsensk dans l’Angleterre du XIXe siècle. L’histoire d’amour sauvage de la jeune Katérina L’vovna avec un domestique, Sergueï, qui l’amène à empoisonner son beau-père, à assassiner son mari, à étouffer le jeune héritier qui pourrait les déposséder, elle et son amant, puis à noyer avec elle la jeune prostituée Sonietka lors de leur voyage en bateau vers le bagne, puisque Sergueï l’a délaissée pour celle-ci. Dans le film anglais, on voit un Sergueï sanglotant pour avoir aidé Katérina à étouffer le jeune héritier, ce qui n’est pas du tout dans l’esprit de Leskov. Sergueï est un animal sexuel totalement amoral, comme l’est aussi Katérina, et les prétendus remords de Sergueï sonnent kitsch mélodramatique. Quant à la mort de Katérina noyant sa rivale, elle est totalement éliminée du film.

    Si l’on veut voir un beau film tiré de la nouvelle de Leskov, regarder à nouveau celui que lui a consacré Wajda, film tourné en Yougoslavie en serbo-croate en 1962, sous le titre Une Lady Macbeth sibérienne.

  • С Днём Святого Духа!

    С Днём Святого Духа!

    20110831_1221054610

     

     

     

    +

    121392.p+

     

     

     

     

    Suprématisme de l'esprit 1920
    Mamévitch, « Suprématisme de l’esprit », vers 1920
  • С Вербным Воскресеньем!

    С Вербным Воскресеньем!

    s7991_1333646851_11 s7991_1333646851_8 s7991_1333646851_5 s7991_1333646851_4 s7991_1333646851_1 giotto25

  • Vladimir Dimitrijević et le Christ

    Je viens de lire, comme antidote aux bonimenteries de foire athéistes de Onfray, ce que dit le grand éditeur serbe Vladimir Dimitrijević, mort en 2011, sur le Christ et le christianisme, dans les entretiens avec Gérard Conio, Béni soit l’exil! (Genève, Syrtes/L’Âge d’homme, 2016) qui fourmillent de réflexions et de commentaires d’une haute tenue sur les questions qui agitent le monde d’aujourd’hui (littérature, politique, édition). Pour moi, ce qui est professé là est bouleversant et mérite d’être placé dans une philocalie des laïcs. Il mentionne Claudel et Le Soulier de satin. Un des meilleurs souvenirs de ma vie est d’avoir invité  Vladimir à aller voir avec moi cette trilogie qui était alors montée sur les tréteaux que Jean-Louis Barreault et Madeleine Renaud avaient installés à la Gare d’Orsay. C’était pour moi la seconde fois que j’allais voir cette représentation grandiose. Valentine n’aimait pas Claudel (comme elle n’aimait pas Bach!), c’est pourquoi j’ai proposé à Vladimir (que tout le monde appelait « Dimitri ») qui habitait chez nous (il a eu les clefs de notre appartement rue Saint-Sulpice pendant toutes les années 1970) de venir voir la monumentale pièce claudélienne. Nous sommes allés et revenus à pied de Saint-Sulpice à Orsay. Nous étions abasourdis, secoués, par  ce bateau ivre qui brassait dans des images d’une force terrienne et cosmique énormes toutes les tempêtes qui bousculent l’homme dans l’amour, l’aventure, la découverte, la destinée métaphysique.

    images
    Vladimir Dimitrijević

     

     

    images-2
    Vladimir Dimitrijević
    images-1
    Vladimir Dimitrijević

     

     

     

     

     

    p. 55442

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    p. 135p. 136p. 137p. 138p. 139p. 140p. 141p. 142p. 143p. 144p. 145

  • Cathédrale orthodoxe russe de la Trinité à Paris

    J’avais suivi avec émotion par internet la consécration de la nouvelle cathédrale par le Patriarche de Moscou Kirill. J’ai pu le dimanche 5 février, dimanche du publicain et du pharisien (parabole  qui met l’accent sur le conflit humain du croyant entre paraître et être), assister à la liturgie célébrée par l’exarque du Patriarcat de Moscou en France, Mgr Nestor. La toute nouvelle église n’est pas encore achevée quant aux peintures murales qui devront recouvrir tous les murs de bas au sommet. Le style de l’iconographie actuelle est visiblement inspiré des peintures  murales de Maître Denis (Dionissi) et de ses fils, à l’aube du XVIème siècle, au Monastère de Théraponte dans la région de Vologda qui se distinguent par leur suavité, la délicatesse des couleurs et parfois un certain maniérisme.

    Le choeur de la nouvelle cathédrale est magistral et donne une magnifique idée de la richesse et de la force de la musique orthodoxe. L’évêque Nestor a fait à la fin de la liturgie un court sermon, en russe et un français impeccable,  sur les martyrs de la foi en Russie soviétique, martyrs dont le nombre dépasse tout ce qu’a connu l’histoire du christianisme, victimes de l’athéisme marxiste-léniniste et stalinien.  .

    L’architecture extérieure, oeuvre de Wilmotte, parfois décriée par les esprits chagrins, est, selon moi, une parfaite réussite, qui inscrit sans heurt la monumentalité architecturale vladimiro-moscovite et le paysage urbain parisien.

    IMG_3756 IMG_3755 IMG_3754 IMG_3753 IMG_3752 IMG_3751 IMG_3750 IMG_3749 IMG_3748 IMG_3747 IMG_3746 IMG_3745 IMG_3744 IMG_3743 IMG_3742 IMG_3741 IMG_3740 IMG_3739 IMG_3738 IMG_3737 IMG_3736 IMG_3735