Digital & Print Membership
Yearly + Receive 8 free printed back issues
$420 Annually
Monthly + Receive 3 free printed back issues
$40 Monthly
Chavis Marmol

You gained a lot of visibility in early 2024 for crushing a Tesla car with a nine-ton replica of an Olmec head. Can you talk about the symbolism behind this destructive work of art/performance art? What did the Tesla represent to you?
The message is highly illustrative: a head, a replica of a pre-Hispanic piece belonging to the oldest known culture in the Americas, combined with the physiological features of the represented face, somewhere between Indigenous and African… all that historical weight crashing down on one of the most emblematic products of post-industrial capitalism.
Not just any car—a Tesla Model 3—a product of the company owned by the world’s richest man. A man who has become the aide-de-camp of the president of the most powerful country on the planet, and who, together with him, seems to manipulate the geopolitical agenda at will.
I like to think that one of the possible readings of this work lies in the act of creation itself, in the sheer fact that a lower-middle-class Mexican crushed a car with an Olmec head as part of an artistic action. For someone from my socioeconomic background, that is both brutal and powerful. That is the message I seek to convey: we do not fear the oligarchs who seek to plunder our land, who impose their rules through tariff blackmail, who attempt to dismantle our economies with trade wars to keep us subdued. But they forget that we are a proud people, with strong roots, whose history has been carved in stone.
Since this work was created, Elon Musk, who was enjoying a certain level of popularity, destroyed his reputation after making very public displays of his admiration for fascist oligarchies, and demonstrating his glee in ruthlessly gutting US government systems. Has the shifting popular opinion of Elon Musk and Tesla had an effect on how your work is viewed?
Absolutely. Since the new Trump administration took office, I have noticed a surge of interest in the sculpture. The piece has managed to capture the spirit of the moment. Without a doubt, many people out there are angry and concerned about the direction the world is taking. In my view, we are at a pivotal moment where decisions made in the Global North will drastically impact the economies of the Global South. Many of these decisions aim to subjugate our countries’ economies for their own benefit, and unfortunately, we will witness how these ultra-capitalist protectionist measures, orchestrated by the richest and most powerful men on the planet, will affect the lives of millions of people worldwide. Undoubtedly, the discontent generated will be reflected in all kinds of artistic manifestations and expressions. The popularity of my sculpture is only just beginning.
The use of the Olmec head in your performance evokes strong historical and cultural connections to Mexico’s ancient civilizations. How do you see the relationship between contemporary consumerism, represented by Tesla, and the deep cultural heritage symbolized by the Olmec head?
For me, it is essential at all times to explain who I am and where I come from. I belong to a socially and economically confused and extremely consumerist class. And yes, I own a MacBook and an iPhone 15, but that doesn’t mean we can’t be critical of the economic system we are part of. To begin with, there is no real way to escape this system unless one lives in a country with entirely different characteristics.
What I am trying to argue is that, at some point, the way we consume all kinds of products is not so different from how we understand and consume pre-Hispanic art. In other words, because our relationship with the world is mediated by capitalism, our understanding and consumption of our own culture are also shaped by it. That is why I am cautious not to fall into a simplistic nationalism that merely waves a flag. I find that to be a dangerous and mediocre stance for something as powerful as art—art that, after all, is produced within a capitalist model.
I apologize if I am being repetitive, but I find it crucial to emphasize this, as my way of thinking is rooted in understanding the place I occupy within the capitalist system. In short, what I am trying to argue is that the problem is not cars or T-shirts with pre-Hispanic images sold in Teotihuacán. The real problem is the conditions we have accepted and normalized, in which, through exploitation, a few accumulate wealth at the expense of most others, including those who labor on their behalf.
You’ve commented on how difficult it is for many Mexicans to afford a Tesla, making it a symbol of inaccessibility. How does your art critique the growing gap between elite consumerism and the everyday realities of people, particularly in Mexico?
Mexico adopted a neoliberal policy in 1994 with the signing of the Free Trade Agreement, marking the beginning of the dismantling of a large number of state-owned enterprises. These businesses ultimately became the foundations of the immense fortunes accumulated by the country’s elite. Entrepreneurs like Carlos Slim, who was granted the national telecommunications concession, greatly benefited from this process, making him one of the richest men in the world.
While it is true that this economic opening brought significant foreign investments and job opportunities, after 30 years of neoliberalism, the country has failed to lift a large portion of its population out of poverty. The rich keep getting richer, while the poor remain trapped in a reality with few opportunities for transformation.
Now, considering that I am far from belonging to the upper class, it is only natural that my work is affected by the economic conditions to which I belong. I strive to be highly aware of my material reality and to operate coherently from that position.
Therefore, the forms, materials, and themes I explore reflect, or are the direct result of, the place I occupy in the material world’s food chain. In other words, having a deeper awareness of how an economic system benefits some while punishing others makes it inevitable that my work carries a strong sense of class consciousness.
Do you feel that your work is political? If so, can you let us know in which ways?
I don’t believe it’s possible to exist outside the realm of politics. That being said, one can choose to engage with politics to a greater or lesser extent. In my case, I prefer to do so with caution. I try to maintain a critical distance, taking the time to analyze and reflect on certain topics in order to gather as much information as possible. And although it is often complicated, I strive to ensure that my political ideologies do not cloud my judgment, though that is not always the case.
Just to clarify, I don’t consider myself left-wing, much less right-wing, because I’m not entirely sure what those labels even mean today. On the contrary, I am skeptical of such concepts. I haven’t voted in recent elections, nor do I believe in the concept of democracy. However, I do try to be a responsible citizen: I pay my taxes, and while I’m sure I fall short in many ways, at the very least, when it comes to my work, I strive to be critical, even of the things I take for granted.
Who are you as a human being? Walk us through your day-to-day habits and interests.
I was born and raised in Apan, Hidalgo. My mother ran a funeral home, and as a teenager, my job was to clean and dress corpses. I also cleaned the funeral home and the service vans. At some point, I thought that would be my entire life, as my mother had no interest in me doing anything else.
When my mother passed away 20 years ago, my aunts encouraged me to study art at a school in Hidalgo. A few months later, I applied and began my art studies. It was in that place that my world changed. There, I had the opportunity to meet intelligent people with ambitions that extended beyond drinking and doing drugs. My introduction to art was the pivotal moment of my life; it was what allowed me to become a better person.
I currently live and work in Mexico City. My way of navigating and exploring the city has always been by bicycle; I have never driven a car nor swum in open water, both the result of childhood traumas. I developed a dark and somewhat distinctive sense of humor because of the environment I grew up in. I think that’s how I approach life, with humor, creativity, and joy, moving around on my bike and focusing on making ends meet each month.
If you could reflect on your youth and childhood, what moments have been deeply ingrained in you that have now become or affected a part of your artistic practice?
There is a saying I like that goes: ‘You can leave the town, but the town will never leave you.’ What is clear to me now is that material conditions govern our world as if they were an astrological chart. ### In other words, the place where you are born and the socioeconomic status you belong to will forever shape your destiny. In the roulette wheel of life, that can mean either fortune or pure hell on earth. However, not everything is predetermined; destiny can be challenged, and sometimes, the antidote lies within the poison itself. The same system that condemns you also holds the tools that can allow you to change your material reality.
In my case, I now understand better what those tools were. On one hand, access to public education. On the other hand, and this has been crucial in my development, the cultural products I have consumed and continue to consume—books, music, TV series, magazines, films. Cultural products shape people’s minds and lives. For me, they were what allowed me to discover that there were other ways to live and understand the world. Art has been one of those cultural products that transformed my destiny.
More from: Chavis Marmol
Keep reading:
Global Echoes of Resistance:
Artists Harnessing Art, Culture, and Ancestry
Moz
{
"article":
{
"title" : "Chavis Marmol",
"author" : "Chavis Marmol",
"category" : "interviews",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/chavis-marmol",
"date" : "2025-05-11 13:43:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/chavis1.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "You gained a lot of visibility in early 2024 for crushing a Tesla car with a nine-ton replica of an Olmec head. Can you talk about the symbolism behind this destructive work of art/performance art? What did the Tesla represent to you?The message is highly illustrative: a head, a replica of a pre-Hispanic piece belonging to the oldest known culture in the Americas, combined with the physiological features of the represented face, somewhere between Indigenous and African… all that historical weight crashing down on one of the most emblematic products of post-industrial capitalism.Not just any car—a Tesla Model 3—a product of the company owned by the world’s richest man. A man who has become the aide-de-camp of the president of the most powerful country on the planet, and who, together with him, seems to manipulate the geopolitical agenda at will.I like to think that one of the possible readings of this work lies in the act of creation itself, in the sheer fact that a lower-middle-class Mexican crushed a car with an Olmec head as part of an artistic action. For someone from my socioeconomic background, that is both brutal and powerful. That is the message I seek to convey: we do not fear the oligarchs who seek to plunder our land, who impose their rules through tariff blackmail, who attempt to dismantle our economies with trade wars to keep us subdued. But they forget that we are a proud people, with strong roots, whose history has been carved in stone.Since this work was created, Elon Musk, who was enjoying a certain level of popularity, destroyed his reputation after making very public displays of his admiration for fascist oligarchies, and demonstrating his glee in ruthlessly gutting US government systems. Has the shifting popular opinion of Elon Musk and Tesla had an effect on how your work is viewed?Absolutely. Since the new Trump administration took office, I have noticed a surge of interest in the sculpture. The piece has managed to capture the spirit of the moment. Without a doubt, many people out there are angry and concerned about the direction the world is taking. In my view, we are at a pivotal moment where decisions made in the Global North will drastically impact the economies of the Global South. Many of these decisions aim to subjugate our countries’ economies for their own benefit, and unfortunately, we will witness how these ultra-capitalist protectionist measures, orchestrated by the richest and most powerful men on the planet, will affect the lives of millions of people worldwide. Undoubtedly, the discontent generated will be reflected in all kinds of artistic manifestations and expressions. The popularity of my sculpture is only just beginning.The use of the Olmec head in your performance evokes strong historical and cultural connections to Mexico’s ancient civilizations. How do you see the relationship between contemporary consumerism, represented by Tesla, and the deep cultural heritage symbolized by the Olmec head?For me, it is essential at all times to explain who I am and where I come from. I belong to a socially and economically confused and extremely consumerist class. And yes, I own a MacBook and an iPhone 15, but that doesn’t mean we can’t be critical of the economic system we are part of. To begin with, there is no real way to escape this system unless one lives in a country with entirely different characteristics.What I am trying to argue is that, at some point, the way we consume all kinds of products is not so different from how we understand and consume pre-Hispanic art. In other words, because our relationship with the world is mediated by capitalism, our understanding and consumption of our own culture are also shaped by it. That is why I am cautious not to fall into a simplistic nationalism that merely waves a flag. I find that to be a dangerous and mediocre stance for something as powerful as art—art that, after all, is produced within a capitalist model.I apologize if I am being repetitive, but I find it crucial to emphasize this, as my way of thinking is rooted in understanding the place I occupy within the capitalist system. In short, what I am trying to argue is that the problem is not cars or T-shirts with pre-Hispanic images sold in Teotihuacán. The real problem is the conditions we have accepted and normalized, in which, through exploitation, a few accumulate wealth at the expense of most others, including those who labor on their behalf.You’ve commented on how difficult it is for many Mexicans to afford a Tesla, making it a symbol of inaccessibility. How does your art critique the growing gap between elite consumerism and the everyday realities of people, particularly in Mexico?Mexico adopted a neoliberal policy in 1994 with the signing of the Free Trade Agreement, marking the beginning of the dismantling of a large number of state-owned enterprises. These businesses ultimately became the foundations of the immense fortunes accumulated by the country’s elite. Entrepreneurs like Carlos Slim, who was granted the national telecommunications concession, greatly benefited from this process, making him one of the richest men in the world.While it is true that this economic opening brought significant foreign investments and job opportunities, after 30 years of neoliberalism, the country has failed to lift a large portion of its population out of poverty. The rich keep getting richer, while the poor remain trapped in a reality with few opportunities for transformation.Now, considering that I am far from belonging to the upper class, it is only natural that my work is affected by the economic conditions to which I belong. I strive to be highly aware of my material reality and to operate coherently from that position.Therefore, the forms, materials, and themes I explore reflect, or are the direct result of, the place I occupy in the material world’s food chain. In other words, having a deeper awareness of how an economic system benefits some while punishing others makes it inevitable that my work carries a strong sense of class consciousness.Do you feel that your work is political? If so, can you let us know in which ways?I don’t believe it’s possible to exist outside the realm of politics. That being said, one can choose to engage with politics to a greater or lesser extent. In my case, I prefer to do so with caution. I try to maintain a critical distance, taking the time to analyze and reflect on certain topics in order to gather as much information as possible. And although it is often complicated, I strive to ensure that my political ideologies do not cloud my judgment, though that is not always the case.Just to clarify, I don’t consider myself left-wing, much less right-wing, because I’m not entirely sure what those labels even mean today. On the contrary, I am skeptical of such concepts. I haven’t voted in recent elections, nor do I believe in the concept of democracy. However, I do try to be a responsible citizen: I pay my taxes, and while I’m sure I fall short in many ways, at the very least, when it comes to my work, I strive to be critical, even of the things I take for granted.Who are you as a human being? Walk us through your day-to-day habits and interests.I was born and raised in Apan, Hidalgo. My mother ran a funeral home, and as a teenager, my job was to clean and dress corpses. I also cleaned the funeral home and the service vans. At some point, I thought that would be my entire life, as my mother had no interest in me doing anything else.When my mother passed away 20 years ago, my aunts encouraged me to study art at a school in Hidalgo. A few months later, I applied and began my art studies. It was in that place that my world changed. There, I had the opportunity to meet intelligent people with ambitions that extended beyond drinking and doing drugs. My introduction to art was the pivotal moment of my life; it was what allowed me to become a better person.I currently live and work in Mexico City. My way of navigating and exploring the city has always been by bicycle; I have never driven a car nor swum in open water, both the result of childhood traumas. I developed a dark and somewhat distinctive sense of humor because of the environment I grew up in. I think that’s how I approach life, with humor, creativity, and joy, moving around on my bike and focusing on making ends meet each month.If you could reflect on your youth and childhood, what moments have been deeply ingrained in you that have now become or affected a part of your artistic practice?There is a saying I like that goes: ‘You can leave the town, but the town will never leave you.’ What is clear to me now is that material conditions govern our world as if they were an astrological chart. ### In other words, the place where you are born and the socioeconomic status you belong to will forever shape your destiny. In the roulette wheel of life, that can mean either fortune or pure hell on earth. However, not everything is predetermined; destiny can be challenged, and sometimes, the antidote lies within the poison itself. The same system that condemns you also holds the tools that can allow you to change your material reality.In my case, I now understand better what those tools were. On one hand, access to public education. On the other hand, and this has been crucial in my development, the cultural products I have consumed and continue to consume—books, music, TV series, magazines, films. Cultural products shape people’s minds and lives. For me, they were what allowed me to discover that there were other ways to live and understand the world. Art has been one of those cultural products that transformed my destiny."
}
,
"relatedposts": [
{
"title" : "Censorship Didn’t Start With Kimmel:: Why Independent Media Is Our Biggest Asset",
"author" : "Céline Semaan",
"category" : "",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/censorship-didnt-start-with-kimmel-why-independent-media-is-our-biggest-asset",
"date" : "2025-09-19 13:55:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/EIP_Cover_Independent_Media.jpg",
"excerpt" : "Jimmy Kimmel is off the air. ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live! after his monologue criticizing the political reaction to Charlie Kirk’s killing. The network, under pressure from conservative outrage, FCC threats, and nervous affiliates, caved. Suddenly, liberal commentators are outraged. Suddenly, people who considered themselves guardians of democracy are crying censorship. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: their tears are 700 days too late.",
"content" : "Jimmy Kimmel is off the air. ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live! after his monologue criticizing the political reaction to Charlie Kirk’s killing. The network, under pressure from conservative outrage, FCC threats, and nervous affiliates, caved. Suddenly, liberal commentators are outraged. Suddenly, people who considered themselves guardians of democracy are crying censorship. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: their tears are 700 days too late.The silencing of voices did not begin with Kimmel. It has been happening all along, in classrooms where burning books was occurring under a democratic leadership, in newsrooms, in publishing houses, in theaters and comedy clubs. It has been happening quietly, steadily, almost imperceptibly—until the silence was too loud to ignore. Karen Attiah, one of the most important voices at The Washington Post, was recently fired. Writers have lost contracts. My own book was shelved by my publisher and literary agents for political reasons. Academics have been dismissed from universities, and journalists pushed out of their jobs. Each case is framed as an exception, but together they reveal a pattern: dissent is increasingly treated as a liability, not a public necessity.Nothing of this is an isolated punishment of individuals but it is a structural effort to narrow the bounds of what can be said. It is McCarthyism repackaged for a new century, only this time its reach extends beyond the Cold War paranoia of communism into the broader realm of political dissent. What we are witnessing is censorship as part of a larger effort to reshaping of the public sphere itself.The Illusion of Democratic ProtectionMany still cling to the idea that democracy, by its very nature, will protect us. That the courts will intervene, that the institutions will hold, that the First Amendment will somehow enforce itself. But democracy is not self-executing. Rights written on paper mean nothing if the institutions that carry them — universities, newsrooms, publishing houses, even late-night television — are captured or hollowed out.The so-called “marketplace of ideas” is an economy owned by corporations, hedge funds, and media conglomerates. What we read, what we watch, what we hear is already shaped by the profit motive and the political pressures of advertisers and owners. When Disney owns the network, when billionaires own the newspapers, when Silicon Valley decides who gets amplified and who gets shadow-banned, it is naïve to think the First Amendment alone will safeguard us. Democracy does not protect its people when its most basic infrastructure has already been sold off.The Long ErosionWhat happened to Kimmel is not shocking; it is predictable. The erosion of free expression has been slow, but steady. It shows up in grant applications denied for being “too political.” In canceled contracts and disappearing op-eds and governmental information wiped out of governmental websites. In comedians who decide not to say something, not because they don’t believe it, but because they know the cost of saying it. In students who fear speaking out, lest it follow them for life. In social media platforms quietly throttling reach under vague “community guidelines.”For over 700 days, genocide has been live-broadcast to the world, and yet the people who speak most clearly about it have been punished — whether by suspension, firing, or erasure. It’s by design, silence is the product of systems working exactly as designed. Even when Arab voices work tirelessly behind the scenes, they are surely to be erased on the world stages. Most convenient to have their message co-opted by palatable influencers or celebrities, who take up space with little critical thinking. This too is a form of censorship.The Role of Independent MediaThis is why independent media is not a luxury. It is a necessity. The survival of democracy depends not on the myth of neutrality in corporate media but on the ability of independent voices to hold power accountable. Independent outlets can say what others cannot, not because they are more radical, but because they are less beholden to greed and power. They exist outside the corridors of corporate profit and political pressure.Independent media tells the stories that otherwise disappear — the stories of people on the margins, the stories of communities under siege, the stories that advertisers would rather you didn’t hear. Acting both as a living archive and the public’s voice, it does more than just document: it builds the collective resilience we need to withstand propaganda. In a landscape flooded with misinformation, independent outlets give people the tools to see through the fog. They are not divisive; they are connective. They create solidarity across differences, reminding us that liberation is never zero-sum.The Structure of SuppressionWhen we talk about censorship, it’s tempting to imagine it as a blunt act: a book banned, a show canceled, a journalist jailed. But most censorship is quieter, structural, and bureaucratic. It looks like funding cuts that suffocate small outlets. It looks like corporate consolidations that shrink the diversity of voices. It looks like algorithms that bury dissent under oceans of entertainment. It looks like lawsuits, defamation threats, and regulatory red tape designed to exhaust those who dare to challenge power.These forms of suppression rarely make headlines, but they are precisely how freedom dies: not with a bang, but with a spreadsheet.Building Cultural InfrastructureIf we are to survive this moment and outlive fascism, we must recognize independent media as cultural infrastructure. It is as essential to democracy as clean water is to life. Without it, we cannot breathe politically. Without it, we cannot resist.This requires resources — not just clicks, likes, or shares, but real investment and independent platforms that can survive Silicon Valley’s censorships. Subscriptions and memberships from everyday people matter, but so does the responsibility of philanthropists and foundations. For too long, they have hidden behind the veil of “neutrality,” funding depoliticized projects while democracy itself collapses. To defend free expression requires courage — the courage to support media that tells uncomfortable truths.Independent media is not disposable content. It is the bedrock of collective survival. And if we allow it to be starved, silenced, or crushed under the weight of corporate monopolies, then we should not be surprised when democracy fails to save us.The CrossroadsWe are at a crossroads. Either we continue to wring our hands as one voice after another is silenced, or we begin to treat the media as the public good it has always been. Either we accept the narrowing of what can be said, or we invest in the broad chorus of voices that democracy requires.Censorship did not begin with Jimmy Kimmel, and it will not end with him. But it can end with us, if we choose to build and defend the cultural infrastructure that outlasts fascism.The choice is simple, but urgent: fund the voices that tell the truth — or watch them disappear.Not tomorrow. Not when it’s convenient. Not when the damage is already done.Now. Thank you for being a member. Invite your peers.Write for EIP."
}
,
{
"title" : "From Sabra & Shatila to Gaza: The UN’s Century of Failure and the Rise of Alternatives",
"author" : "Collis Browne",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/from-sabra-and-shatila-to-gaza",
"date" : "2025-09-16 10:47:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/2025_9_16_UN_Genocide_1.jpg",
"excerpt" : "On the 43rd anniversary of the massacres committed under Israeli authority at Sabra and Shatila camps in Beirut in 1982, a United Nations Commission Of Inquiry has concluded, as would any rational observer, that Israel has been committing genocide in Gaza since October 2023.",
"content" : "On the 43rd anniversary of the massacres committed under Israeli authority at Sabra and Shatila camps in Beirut in 1982, a United Nations Commission Of Inquiry has concluded, as would any rational observer, that Israel has been committing genocide in Gaza since October 2023.This is not news. It could, however, be a turning point, . The UN’s declaration cracks open the conservative West’s long-standing wall of denial about the genocidal intentions and actions of the U.S.–Israel military machine. What happens next matters.A Century of Genocidal IntentFor those who have been watching Palestine with clarity long before 2023, this genocide is not an aberration — it is the project itself. From its inception, every major Zionist leader and Israeli politician has openly articulated the goal of erasing the Indigenous people of Palestine, whether through forced expulsion or mass murder.More than a hundred years of speeches, policies, and massacres testify to this intent. The so-called “War on Gaza” is simply the most visible and livestreamed stage of an ongoing colonial project.The UN’s Empty WordsIs this UN report different? The UN has made declarative statements for decades with no action or enforcement. In 1975, the UN declared Zionism is racism, citing the “unholy alliance” between apartheid South Africa and Israel. Yet Zionists continued to enjoy privileged status across Western institutions. Since 1967, the UN has passed resolution after resolution denouncing illegal Israeli settlements on stolen Palestinian land. Still, the theft continues unchecked. In December 2022, the UN General Assembly demanded Israel end its “unlawful presence” in the Occupied Territories within one year. That deadline expires this week, September 18, 2025. Israel has ignored it completely, as expected — with no consequences. Declarations without enforcement are not justice. They are fig leaves for impunity.What Good Is the UN?The Geneva Convention obliges all states to intervene to stop and punish genocide. Yet no country has deployed forces to resist Israel’s military slaughter in Gaza. No sanctions. No accountability.If the UN cannot stop one of its own member states from carrying out genocide in full public view — in “4K” as the world watches live — then what is the UN for?The Rise of AlternativesThe cracks are widening. The government of China has announced a new Global Governance initiative, already backed by dozens of countries. Without illusions about its motivations, the concept paper at least addresses three of the UN’s structural failures: Underrepresentation of the Global South — redressing centuries of colonial imbalance. Erosion of authoritativeness — restoring the credibility of international law. Urgent need for effectiveness — accelerating stalled progress on global commitments like the UN’s 2030 Agenda. The question is not whether the UN will reform. It is whether it can survive its own irrelevance.Toward a New Global OrderFrom Sabra and Shatila to Gaza, the UN has failed to prevent — or even meaningfully resist — genocide. Its reports and resolutions pile up, while the graves in Palestine multiply.If the international body tasked with “peace and security” cannot act against the most televised genocide in history, then the world has to ask: do we need a new United Nations? Or do we need to build something entirely different — a system of global governance that serves the people, not the powerful?"
}
,
{
"title" : "France in Revolt: Debt, Uranium, and the Costs of Macron-ism",
"author" : "EIP Editors",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/france-in-revolt",
"date" : "2025-09-14 22:39:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Bloquons-Tout.jpg",
"excerpt" : "France is burning again—not only on the streets of Paris but in the brittle foundations of its political economy. What began as a mass revolt against austerity and public-service cuts has become a national convulsion: roads blocked, train stations occupied, workplaces shut down under the call to “Bloquons Tout” (Let’s Block Everything). The collapse of François Bayrou’s government is only the latest symptom. At the root of the crisis is a political project: Macronism—the steady, decade-long tilt toward pro-business reforms, tax cuts for the wealthy, and austerity by default—that has hollowed out public revenue and narrowed citizens’ options.",
"content" : "France is burning again—not only on the streets of Paris but in the brittle foundations of its political economy. What began as a mass revolt against austerity and public-service cuts has become a national convulsion: roads blocked, train stations occupied, workplaces shut down under the call to “Bloquons Tout” (Let’s Block Everything). The collapse of François Bayrou’s government is only the latest symptom. At the root of the crisis is a political project: Macronism—the steady, decade-long tilt toward pro-business reforms, tax cuts for the wealthy, and austerity by default—that has hollowed out public revenue and narrowed citizens’ options.Tax Cuts, Corporate Giveaways, and Rising DebtSince Emmanuel Macron took office in 2017, his administration rolled out a suite of pro-market reforms: the abolition of the broad wealth tax (ISF), replaced by a narrower property wealth tax (IFI); a sustained reduction of the corporate tax rate to about 25%; and a raft of tax measures framed as competitiveness fixes for companies and investors. Economists now estimate that Macron’s tax cuts account for a significant share of France’s rising public debt; his reforms helped widen deficits even before pandemic and energy-shock spending pushed them higher. Today France’s public debt sits near 113–114% of GDP, and ratings agencies and markets are watching closely. (Le Monde.fr)These policies did not produce the promised boom in broadly shared prosperity. Investment did not surge enough to offset lost revenue, and growth remained sluggish. The political consequence was predictable: when the state has less to spend, the burden of balancing budgets falls on cuts to pensions, healthcare, and social programs—measures that overwhelmingly hurt working-class and vulnerable communities. (Financial Times)Pension Reform, Social Fracture, and the Limits of ConsentMacron’s government pushed a controversial pension reform—raising the retirement age from 62 to 64—which sparked nationwide strikes and mass protests in 2023. The reform illustrated a defining feature of Macronism: when public consent falters, the state still presses forward with market-oriented restructuring, deepening social fracture and anger. The pension fight didn’t create the crisis so much as expose it. (Al Jazeera)Colonial Hangover: Uranium, Energy, and GeopoliticsFrance’s energy model has long rested on nuclear power—once a source of national pride for its emission-free nature, and geopolitical independence. Behind that story, however, is another: the colonial era’s extraction of uranium in places like Niger, where French companies (notably Orano/former Areva) secured resource access under unequal terms. As Niger reasserted sovereignty over its resources after the 2023 coup and pushed back on French access, the illusion of seamless “energy independence” began to crack. Losing preferential access to Nigerien uranium has widened France’s energy insecurity and amplified the fiscal squeeze: higher energy costs, the need to secure new supply chains, and political pressure to maintain subsidies for households. The politics of extraction are now returning home. (Le Monde.fr)Climate, Austerity, and the Moral EconomyAdd the climate emergency to the mix—record heatwaves, floods, and wildfires—and the picture becomes even more bleak. Infrastructure strain and rising costs of climate adaptation demand public investment, yet the government’s posture has been to trim and reprioritize spending to satisfy markets. In practice, that means the people least responsible for climate harm—low-income communities, migrants, and precarious workers—are asked to pay the price. The result is a moral and political rupture: climate vulnerability plus fiscal austerity equals radicalized grievance. (Financial Times)A Convergence of FailuresThis is why the current uprising cannot be reduced to a single grievance. It is the convergence of multiple failures: Economic: tax policy that favored the wealthy while starving the public purse; rising debt and cuts that fall on the poor. (Financial Times) Colonial: the unraveling of extractive arrangements that once propped up French energy and power. (Le Monde.fr) Ecological: climate shocks that amplify social need even as public services are stripped back. (Financial Times) The revolt has therefore drawn a broad constituency—students, unions, public-sector workers, and neighborhoods long marginalized by austerity. It is not merely a labor dispute; it is a crisis of legitimacy for a model of governance that privatized gains and socialized pain.What Macronism Tells Us About the Global MomentFrance is a cautionary tale for democracies worldwide. When political leaders prioritize tax breaks for capital and cut public goods to placate markets, they borrow political stability against the future. The bill eventually comes due—in rising debt, in weakened social cohesion, and in violent backlash. Where resource dependencies meet neoliberal retrenchment, the risk of social rupture grows.Three Questions for What Comes Next Will the French state return to a redistributive project—taxing wealth, reclaiming revenues, and investing in climate resilience—or double down on austerity? Can movements translate street power into institutional change that addresses colonial legacies (resource sovereignty) as well as domestic inequality? Will climate policy be woven into social policy—so that adaptation and justice go hand in hand—or will they remain separate priorities, deepening vulnerability? France stands at a crossroads: continue a model that funnels benefit to capital while exposing citizens to climate and economic shocks—or imagine a social contract rooted in redistribution, de-colonial resource politics, and ecological justice. The choice will not be made in the Élysée alone. It is being argued in the streets, in workplaces, and across borders where the costs of extraction were first paid.Everything is Political—and in France today, that truth has never been clearer."
}
]
}