法國階級「大革命」 巴黎怒火在燃燒

<轉載自2018年12月5日 明報 社評>

巴黎發生半世紀最嚴重騷亂，凱旋門成為戰場，法國政府宣布暫停燃油稅計劃，推出利民紓困措施，盼息民憤。全球化在西方遇上強大逆流，法國這場由燃油稅觸發的「黃背心運動」，突顯城鄉和階級矛盾，以及普羅大眾對精英巨富的憤怒。一年半前法國總統馬克龍上台，遏阻歐美民粹主義浪潮，然而其政策中間路線為表、親富親商為實，未能為法國殺出一條血路。花都騷亂粉碎了馬克龍中間路線神話，西方民粹浪潮愈演愈烈，全球化面臨愈來愈大挑戰，如何改革資本主義，讓財富分配更加公平，西方頗有不知何去何從之嘆。

黃背心示威反精英 馬克龍妥協求罷兵

過去3周，「黃背心運動」搖撼了法國。示威導火線是馬克龍以減排之名調高燃油稅。在法國，司機車內必須配備黃背心，以便應付在公路「死火拋錨」情况。法國鄉郊民眾日常依賴汽車出入，早前才捱過高油價之苦，現在又要加稅，不少人怒不可遏上街抗議，「黃背心運動」迅速蔓延。上周六，巴黎爆發了1968年「五月風暴」以來最嚴重騷亂，香榭麗舍大道猶如戰場，激進分子一邊縱火，一邊在凱旋門噴上「馬克龍辭職」、「推翻資產階級」等塗鴉，有黃背心示威者形容，「這是一場革命」。

今次巴黎騷亂的畫面，令人想起半世紀前法國「五月風暴」火燒股票交易所一幕。這兩場社會運動，本質其實有顯著分別。法國「六八學運」由左翼牽頭爭取改革，相比之下，「黄背心運動」沒有明顯領頭人，主要靠社交網絡動員，參與周六巴黎騷亂的，既有極右亦有極左分子。「黃背心運動」一發不可收拾，反映了民眾不滿馬克龍施政，亦折射了全球化之下當前法國以至西方的困境。

過去廿年，經濟全球化為中國等發展中國家帶來莫大好處，西方發達世界亦有受惠，惟在新自由主義經濟當道下，小撮巨富精英成為最大得益者，打工仔得益有限，金融海嘯引發經濟危機，重挫民生，掀起反全球化民粹浪潮，英國公投脫歐和特朗普當選美國總統成為標誌事件。2017年法國大選，馬克龍提倡中間路線，以遏阻右翼民粹主義為己任，擊敗極右領袖馬林勒龐，當選法國總統，加上同年德國默克爾連任總理，總算壓住民粹狂潮。

法國經濟有三大死結，包括政府開支過大、勞工成本太高、核心競爭力不足。馬克龍承諾改革、創造就業、提升法國商界競爭力，讓普羅大眾分享經濟全球化好處。過去兩年，法國經濟增長步伐略有加快，失業率有所下跌，工資緩緩增長，惟通脹亦步亦趨，打工仔未覺受惠。馬克龍自稱政策非左非右，口頭禪是「同時」（et en même temps），保障低收入工人與放寬勞工法例規管可以「並行不悖」。馬克龍尋求削減政府開支、改革勞動市場等，大方向沒有錯，可是他的多項政策，諸如削減富人稅等，均屬親商親富右傾政策，愈來愈多法國人覺得「同時」是笑話，馬克龍是富人總統，代表精英階層利益，中間路線不過是政治包裝。

馬克龍以減排為由上調燃油稅，看在鄉郊民眾眼裏，不過是拿他們來開刀，不理民間疾苦，左翼質疑馬克龍巧立名目加稅幫補國庫，右翼認為他為了符合歐盟減排要求，吃裏扒外犧牲國民利益。事態發展成為一場反對馬克龍和精英階層運動，極左極右罕有聯手。馬克龍民望跌至不足兩成半，反觀超過六成半法國人都支持或同情「黃背心」，鄉郊民眾和藍領的支持度更高達七至八成。不少示威者要求上調最低工資，還原去年廢除的富人財產稅，現在法國政府讓步暫緩上調燃油稅，示威者會否「罷兵」，仍是未知之數。

馬克龍經此一役，管治威信不易恢復，加上德國默克爾民心漸失，放棄尋求連任，法德能否繼續發揮歐洲定海神針作用，向民粹主義和保護主義說不，需要密切留意。歐美民粹主義方興未艾，背後反映的是西方資本主義陷入危機，普羅大眾未能分享經濟成果，貧富懸殊變本加厲，就連《經濟學人》也表示要展開「新資本主義革命」。

法德抗民粹面臨考驗 資本主義改革覓出路

馬克龍主張以中間路線改革「法國特色資本主義」，走了僅僅一年多已陷入死胡同。歐美右翼民粹政客正試圖以經濟民族主義和保護主義，應對這場資本主義危機，可是不少學者都懷疑，這種將內部矛盾轉化為外部矛盾的做法，是否能夠解決危機。近期美國民主黨有人提倡參考德國經驗，要企業負起更大社會責任，與員工分享財富，包括立法規定大企業董事局必須有四成代表由員工選出，至於政府則會考慮向企業提供政策支持，鼓勵創新發展。這種帶有社團主義（corporatism）色彩的改革路線會否成為主流，仍待觀察，然而不少美國人顯然意識到，資本主義已屆改革之秋。

Paris burning with anger

THE worst riot in Paris in half a century has turned the Arc de Triomphe into a battlefield. The French government has announced that it will shelve a plan to increase fuel taxes and introduce relief measures to improve people's livelihood in an attempt to placate the public. Globalisation is facing a strong backlash in the Western world. The "yellow vests movement", triggered by the proposed increase in fuel taxes, has put conflicts between urban and rural areas, conflicts between different social classes and the masses' hatred of the wealthy elite on full display. One and a half years ago, the election of Emmanuel Macron as president kept the wave of populism in Europe and the US in check. But he has failed to blaze a trail for France, as his policies are friendly to businesses and wealthy people under a moderate veneer.

Over the past three weeks, the "yellow vests movement" has shaken France. The protests were triggered by Macron's proposal to increase fuel taxes in the name of reducing emissions. In France, drivers must be equipped with yellow vests in their cars to deal with what happens when a car breaks down on the road. French people living in rural areas rely on cars for transportation. Having just sat out a spike in oil prices earlier, they were angered by the increase in taxes. They took to the street and the "yellow vests movement" spread rapidly. Last Saturday Paris saw the worst riot since the May 1968 events. The Avenue des Champs-Élysées was turned into a battlefield, with radicals setting things on fire and spraying graffiti on the Arc de Triomphe de l'Étoile reading "Resign, Macron", "Down with the bourgeois", etc. Some "yellow vests" protesters have called it a "revolution".

The scenes of riots in Paris are redolent of the burning of the stock exchange during the May 1968 events half a century ago. The two social movements, however, were apparently different in nature. The 1968 student movement was spearheaded by the left wing to fight for reform. The "yellow vests movement", in contrast, did not have an outright leader. Social network was used to mobilise participants. Those who took part in the Paris riots last Saturday included the far right as well as the far left. That the yellow vests movement spiralled out of control reflects not only people's dissatisfaction with Macron's governance but also the difficulties facing France and the Western world amid globalisation.

Macron proposes middle-of-the-road politics to reform "capitalism with French characteristics". But he has found himself in a blind alley just more than a year after his election. Right-wing populist politicians are trying to solve the crisis facing capitalism with economic nationalism and protectionism. Many academics, however, are sceptical whether such a way of transforming internal conflicts into external conflicts is sufficient to solve the crisis. Recently some Democrats in the US have proposed adopting the German strategy to require corporations to shoulder more social responsibility and share wealth with employees. This includes the legal requirement that 40% of representatives sitting on the board of directors are elected by employees, while the government should consider providing support for corporations through policies to encourage innovation. It remains to be seen whether such a road to reform, which carries characteristics of corporatism, will find its way into the mainstream. But many Americans have apparently realised that time has come for a reform of capitalism.

法國階級「大革命」 巴黎怒火在燃燒

巴黎發生半世紀最嚴重騷亂，凱旋門成為戰場，法國政府宣布暫停燃油稅計劃，推出利民紓困措施，盼息民憤。全球化在西方遇上強大逆流，法國這場由燃油稅觸發的「黃背心運動」，突顯城鄉和階級矛盾，以及普羅大眾對精英巨富的憤怒。一年半前法國總統馬克龍上台，遏阻歐美民粹主義浪潮，然而其政策中間路線為表、親富親商為實，未能為法國殺出一條血路。

過去3周，「黃背心運動」搖撼了法國。示威導火線是馬克龍以減排之名調高燃油稅。在法國，司機車內必須配備黃背心，以便應付在公路「死火拋錨」情况。法國鄉郊民眾日常依賴汽車出入，早前才捱過高油價之苦，現在又要加稅，不少人怒不可遏上街抗議，「黃背心運動」迅速蔓延。上周六，巴黎爆發了1968年「五月風暴」以來最嚴重騷亂，香榭麗舍大道猶如戰場，激進分子一邊縱火，一邊在凱旋門噴上「馬克龍辭職」、「推翻資產階級」等塗鴉，有黃背心示威者形容，「這是一場革命」。

今次巴黎騷亂的畫面，令人想起半世紀前法國「五月風暴」火燒股票交易所一幕。這兩場社會運動，本質其實有顯著分別。法國「六八學運」由左翼牽頭爭取改革，相比之下，「黄背心運動」沒有明顯領頭人，主要靠社交網絡動員，參與周六巴黎騷亂的，既有極右亦有極左分子。「黃背心運動」一發不可收拾，反映了民眾不滿馬克龍施政，亦折射了全球化之下當前法國以至西方的困境。

馬克龍主張以中間路線改革「法國特色資本主義」，走了僅僅一年多已陷入死胡同。歐美右翼民粹政客正試圖以經濟民族主義和保護主義，應對這場資本主義危機，可是不少學者都懷疑，這種將內部矛盾轉化為外部矛盾的做法，是否能夠解決危機。近期美國民主黨有人提倡參考德國經驗，要企業負起更大社會責任，與員工分享財富，包括立法規定大企業董事局必須有四成代表由員工選出，至於政府則會考慮向企業提供政策支持，鼓勵創新發展。這種帶有社團主義（corporatism）色彩的改革路線會否成為主流，仍待觀察，然而不少美國人顯然意識到，資本主義已屆改革之秋。