FORCED LIKE MACRON WILL NEVER LET GO OF POWER...BY HIMSELF - Frederic Lordon

Emmanuel Macron will never resign voluntarily because this action contradicts his fundamental psychic makeup. Furthermore, the neoliberal policies enacted over the last decade have severely damaged society. Calls for individual virtue are meaningless when the institutional framework itself is failing to manage these deep-seated contradictions.

The resignation of himself is a gesture that is orthogonal to his psychic structure, which is impossible.

The current political moment is often labeled a crisis of regime by constitutionalists, but this perspective is insufficient as it treats the juridico-political sphere as autonomous. A deeper analysis, rooted in historical materialism, requires tracing political phenomena back to the underlying material forces and the social groups supporting them.

An institutional crisis in the politico-juridical order must be seen as a manifestation of something more profound. Like the epicenter of an earthquake, the surface event reveals a deeper, originating cause within the economic base of society.

The fundamental crisis of contemporary capitalism can be summarized simply: the bourgeoisie no longer wishes to pay its required contributory effort, which is essential for collective material reproduction. This applies to both wealthy private individuals and large corporate entities.

This accommodation strategy is reaching its limit because the bourgeoisie's refusal to contribute has made the massacre of collective functions unbearable for the rest of the population. This has spurred opposition that has fragmented into two blocs—the left bloc (France Insoumise) and the far-right bloc (Rassemblement National)—creating an intrinsically unstable tripartition.

The institutions of the Fifth Republic were historically best equipped to generate majorities. However, the deepening of material economic contradictions has overwhelmed their means, causing their capacity for accommodation to overflow. They cannot reconcile just any set of conflicting forces indefinitely.

The institutions of the Fifth Republic realize such a concentration of power in the summit of the presidency that a passably deregulated individual... can maintain himself and maintain his economic policy options against all odds.

The prevailing narrative attempts to sell the public on an 'spirit of responsibility,' essentially inviting political actors to engage in further compromises. This rhetoric suggests that the inability to pass a budget, for instance, is a failure of morality rather than an institutional breakdown.

Multiplying calls for virtue will not remedy a configuration where institutions are incapable of performing their designated work. Demanding virtuous signaling from individuals is pointless when the structural framework itself requires fundamental reconstruction.

The analysis must start from a historical materialist base. The pervasive failure in journalistic thought demonstrates a common trait among neoliberal elites—political, economic, and journalistic—who are intellectually inadequate to grasp the situation's structural roots.

The authoritarian trajectory of Macronism is fully explained by Gramsci's concept of organic crisis: contradictions within capitalism have passed critical thresholds, rendering extra-economic institutions, especially political ones, incapable of containing them. The only true exit is institutional overhaul, extending even to the economic structures of neoliberal accumulation.

The term 'bordélisation' (chaos/messiness), popularized by figures like Darmanin and amplified by the press, represents the expressive manifestation of failed responsibility among political actors.

Crucially, this political chaos is not self-generated; it is the direct result of the 'bordélisation' that the public policies of neoliberalism, particularly Macronism, have sown throughout society over the past three decades. The political sphere is merely reflecting the societal devastation.

When the institutional bearings decompose, latent confusions become visible. The only poles of stability observed in the political field are the two factions of the fractured opposition: La France Insoumise and the Rassemblement National. LFI, however, displays far greater consistency than the RN.

Political order is usually stabilized by institutional regularities that channel conflict. When these institutions are overwhelmed by economic and social phenomena, these organizing bearings decompose, causing collective behaviors to break down. This reveals underlying antagonisms that were previously held together by institutional compromise.

The case of the Socialist Party represents a painful clarification: it is fundamentally a right-wing party, only retaining a left-wing label due to journalistic inertia. Its historical role as a component of the left is no longer supported by its foundational principles.

The conditions that allowed social democracy to function—namely, forcing capital to negotiate compromises—have been destroyed by the shift to deregulated, finance-dominated capitalism since the 1970s. Capital no longer needs to negotiate when it can impose its desires unilaterally.

This will not happen. This will not happen. It is, if you will, from all this evolution that the historical decline of the Socialist Party is the measurable product...

Active and decisive effort must be directed toward ensuring the political death of the Socialist Party. One path toward this end is through suicide, meaning joining the central bloc, which is characterized by an extremism comparable to the far right.

Assigning a singular meaning to 'the people' is problematic, as it encompasses heterogeneous social groups with potentially antagonistic interests. History demonstrates that political transformation is often driven by active minorities, such as during the French Revolution, rather than broad popular consensus.

In political theory, populism often involves constructing a heterogeneous aggregate and labeling it 'the people' using a 'floating signifier.' This strategy risks failure when power is exercised, as the underlying, unaddressed antagonisms surface violently.

The concept of democracy is often superficially reduced to elections and press freedom. True democracy requires engagement with intermediate bodies and social movements, as bourgeois democracy, narrowly defined, approaches a contradiction in terms.

When the crisis of capitalism transmits to political institutions and erodes legitimacy, political stability shifts from being produced by consent to being maintained by coercion and repression, a trajectory evident in social movements since 2015.

At the moment when the crisis of capitalism transmits to political institutions and where the legitimacy of these institutions begins to erode or is about to collapse, political stability is no longer produced by consent but by coercion.

Analyzing the psyche of Emmanuel Macron is warranted, especially given the extreme concentration of power vested in the presidency under the Fifth Republic. While one must avoid mere psychologism—explaining collective situations solely through the intentions of actors—the psychic dimension is crucial.

Social structures and psychic structures are coextensive, with social structures determining psychic ones. The structures of unleashed, fascisizing capitalism select for the psychic structures most adequate to them, which, in evolutionary terms, is the structure of perversion.

Macron is not the master of time but the slave of his psyche. His enjoyment of ministerial uncertainty and his denial of alterity during the massive pension protests exemplify this psychological dynamic overriding political timing.

The conclusion remains that Macron will never resign on his own initiative. For him to leave, two scenarios are possible: either a mass popular movement reaching quasi-insurrectional levels, or Macron being 'unplugged' by the capital sector acting through the bond markets.

Dissolution of the National Assembly cannot resolve the core issue, which is the unstable configuration of tripartition coupled with the insoluble budgetary equation. A legislative election would likely reproduce similar results without altering the fundamental contradictions.

The minimum requirement is Macron's departure, as he is the chief architect of society's sacking. If capital decides to remove its agent of power due to inconvenience, it will replace him with a functional equivalent, meaning the underlying structural problems persist regardless of the individual.

The institutions of representative democracy actively manufacture an habitus of passivity among citizens, reducing political behavior largely to electoral participation every five years. Overcoming this requires social tensions to reach an unbearable level, forcing people beyond exhausted political mediations.

For mass mobilization to occur, there must be a coordination pole issuing a call to action. While spontaneous movements like the Yellow Vests existed, relying on miracles is not a viable political strategy.

Due to the manifest failure of the inter-union structure, La France Insoumise (LFI) is currently assuming the role of the coordination pole for mobilization calls. This creates an objective, yet temporary, alliance with the popular movement.

This alliance is inherently unstable because LFI's institutional goal is electoral recovery (Presidential/6th Republic), whereas a mass movement might aspire to much more ambitious transformations, including economic restructuring, shortly after taking to the streets.

Local, grassroots institutional creativity is insufficient to establish an alternative social model aiming for the exit from capitalism. A comprehensive institutional schema across all territorial and macro-social levels is required—a radical refoundation termed 'Communism' by some thinkers.

It is vital for the radical left to elevate its reflection to the level of defining clear goals, as the opposing camp is clearly focused on achieving specific objectives rather than merely valuing the process. The path must be aligned with a defined destination.

And well, it is Spinoza's God... God, for Spinoza, is in some way the metonymy of all Spinozist philosophy.