Last November, on the occasion of the release of his latest essay – The Light of Chaos. For a society of possibility (Ed. de l’Observatoire), the investment banker and iconocaste entrepreneur, Matthieu Pigasse warned in an interview with The Express against the dangers of a society on the brink of the abyss undermined by rising inequalities. Six months later and the day after an election which saw an unprecedented surge in the National Rally, he is still alarmed and fears a democratic collapse and a generalized civil war. But in the current tumult, he also sees some reasons for hope, and in particular the return of a humanist and social left. Union of the left and common program, drift of certain media, deception of the RN… Matthieu Pigasse hits and explains himself.
L’Express: Your latest book, published last year, is entitled The light of chaos. There has been chaos since the dissolution of the National Assembly. But do you see light?
Matthieu Pigasse: We have entered the era of chaos for some time now, and that was indeed the theme of my book. Chaos is the dislocation of the society we live in, and for me it is the result of a capitalist system running out of steam: cessation of growth, explosion of inequalities, withdrawal into oneself, loss of collective meaning … Chaos is the end of an illusion, that of happy globalization and a peaceful society. I had the opportunity to highlight the risks, widespread civil war and democratic collapse. Today, these risks are there more than ever. But the worst is never certain, and from this chaos light can emerge.
Even if giving the voice of the people always seems to be a good idea, was it really the time for Emmanuel Macron to opt for dissolution?
There is no point commenting at length on what has been done. I will say only one thing; the dissolution was based on a bet, that of the division of the left. From this point of view, Emmanuel Macron has already failed. But coming back to the European elections, there are actually two major lessons. The first, terrible and overwhelming, is the high score of the RN. But the second, which we do not emphasize enough, is the return of the humanist and social left. This left, which had disappeared, made 14%, far ahead of LFI. And it allows the union of all the lefts. Light can come out of that. In any case, we must try everything to bring about a new model of fraternal and reconciled society.
The other thing that struck me this week was the political spectacle offered, particularly on the right. It’s like a Shakespeare play, but without the grandeur, a play full of traitors and buffoons. Among the buffoons, there are those who lock themselves in their office, but also those who, on television, play the role of clown, but who are in reality activists, and I am thinking of Cyril Hanouna. At least the masks have fallen…
You claim to be a universalist left. But does allying with LFI not mean compromising with a community left, leaving leadership once again to Jean-Luc Mélenchon?
I first consider that we must do everything to block the RN. Living up to the historic moment we are experiencing means doing everything we can to oppose the far right, today and tomorrow. It is both our honor and our duty. We must never compromise ourselves, neither with this party, nor with its ideas, because it is nothing other than the modern version of the filthy beast of the century before, simply with new masks. Remove these masks, and you will see hatred, withdrawal, that is to say a society of fear and distrust. The late Daniel Cohen said that basically, the far-right voter is someone who has lost confidence in himself and in the system, thus entering a circle of distrust. This leads to a society of scapegoats, in which there is always a culprit and the culprit is always the other: the foreigner, the Muslim, the homosexual, the woman…. This hatred is a poison that divides and destroys.
So yes, uniting on the left is a duty. Especially since the balance of forces on the left has profoundly changed. During the last two years, LFI has monopolized the space, because there was no alternative on the left. But the PS and Raphaël Glucksmann made 14%, LFI less than 10%. All left-wing sensibilities are now found in this union, the left of the left, the ecologists, the social democrats, etc., but better balanced because its center of gravity has changed. It’s a new world for the left And yes, I belong to this humanist and social left, and I am universalist, which requires the absolute refusal of all discrimination, including anti-Semitism, a subject on which we must never compromise.
But let’s make no mistake about the enemy. The enemy is the far right. Marx said that history always repeats itself. Let’s hope she doesn’t repeat in a few weeks…
In fact, isn’t history likely to repeat itself if the left wins with its common program? After the victory of 1981, there was the turn to austerity in 1983. Given the budgetary state of France today, this turn to austerity could arrive much more quickly…
This risk no longer exists for either the extreme right or the extreme left. And this, for a simple reason: Europe and the euro zone. In 1983, the monetary crisis and the foreign exchange crisis caused a complete unraveling of France, leading to a brutal change in policy. Today, thanks to Europe, this is no longer possible, precisely because we are protected by the euro. Ironically, the single currency would, in a way, immunize both the left and the extreme right. This euro that the RN despises would be its best guarantee if it came to power, at least for a certain time.
Obviously, the risk is no longer on foreign exchange but has it not shifted to interest rates…
Indeed, we can observe a temporary increase in interest rates. Mainly before the elections, because markets hate uncertainty. You will also note that if you look a little further, the interest rates on French debt did not rise that much after the announcement of the dissolution.
But to focus only on the economic question is to fight the wrong battle. It is above all a social choice. The current divide, basically, is openness versus closure. This is the choice we have to make today. On the one hand, with the RN, there is the project of a closed society. It is a walled-in society, with borders and minds closed. On the other hand, there is a society of openness, with the recognition of difference in all its richness and strength, whether political, ethnic, sexual, religious…. Basically, what is the RN program? Two things: a rigid society and a conservative economic policy. Look at the votes of RN deputies in the European Parliament. Systematically, they voted against abortion (refusing its inclusion in the fundamental charter of the Union), against texts denouncing sexual violence or against the recognition of LGBT rights.
But isn’t the RN’s economic program basically a left-wing program, with a refusal of retirement at 64 (even if Jordan Bardella has just delayed on this subject), the reestablishment of the ISF or a tax on super profits?
I completely disagree. The RN program, when you look closely, is absolute conservatism. It is a society in which the poor stay poor, and the rich stay rich. There is no desire for redistribution. The symbolic measure is the reduction in VAT from 20% to 5.5% on energy, a completely unequal measure since it inherently benefits everyone.
But the RN massively appeals to a popular electorate…
The RN deceives its electorate. Furthermore, at the European level, they defend measures (right of veto, national preference, etc.) contrary to community rules, and which will lead to a disintegration, even a dismantling of Europe as we know it. However, in today’s world, calling Europe into question means breaking the last shield we have to protect ourselves from the forces on the move. It’s crazy. If we go in this direction, we will not recover. The end of Europe means the marginalization of France and assured decline.
The Macronist bloc, more liberal, and the left mainly compete for metropolises and suburbs. Everywhere else, rural and peripheral France votes massively for the RN…
First of all, let us emphasize, what brings us together, the left union and the Macronist bloc, are the essential values of democracy and freedom. All the countries in which the far right has come to power, Hungary, Poland, and now Italy, have all seen a drift towards illiberalism. That is to say a restriction of fundamental freedoms.
But your remark is indeed central: the left has lost the popular electorate. This is a fact, hence the current political drama. The left has been incapable of rethinking the world like the capitalist system, leaving the field open to both extremes. To reoccupy this space, the first fight is against inequalities. They are multiple, of wealth and heritage, but there are also inequalities of access to the healthcare system, education, and security. It is also high time for the left to reclaim the theme of security, which is not a right-wing subject, because it is the subject of the Republic. I am talking about all forms of security, economic and social security, that is to say being protected in the event of an accident in life, but also physical and personal security. There is no freedom and equality, or even fraternity, without security. These are left-wing values. Freedom and equality indeed require that we be as safe in the 8th arrondissement of Paris as in Sarcelles or anywhere else. I also believe in republican authority.
Finally, on the economic level, fighting against inequalities requires more redistribution, with taxation of the super-rich. But it also involves decentralization policies in order to be closer to citizens.
What do you think would be the consequences of the RN coming to power for the media?
An authoritarian takeover… We can realize today how important pluralism is. Many media outlets – TV, radio, written press – are today run by billionaires, who are rather conservative. And then there is a public audiovisual group. If the RN comes to power, there will be a takeover of this public broadcasting – even if they talk about privatization. As far as I am concerned, in response, I will do everything possible to preserve and build spaces of freedom in the media that I control. Their vocation will be to welcome all those who want to speak and express themselves freely.
.