A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
“Watching these images, we have all asked ourselves how could French people do this to France?”
It's almost like people were protesting the system its self... like they feel under represented or something.
anyone who asks that question, especially of French citizens, has brain damage and is unfit to ask more questions.
On the ground in France for Lemmy News International right now.
France is kind of fucked. Politically, the centrist president is termed out of office, and there is no charismatic centrist replacement. The alternatives are the left under a very unpopular candidate and the right under an extremely unpopular candidate.
France has been running a massive deficit for decades and has some of the hightest debt burden on earth. It also has, right now, one of the highest interest rates of any major economy. The only way out is either massive increases in taxation or massive austerity measures.
The centrist government tried tepid austerity measures a short while ago (increase the retirement age from 62 to 64) and was met with absolutely massive protests. Parliament tried to pass a wealth tax (Zucman tax, named after a famous economist) but failed.
The left and the right both plan massive increases in spending if they win the election. If the left wins, that means the wealth tax is back; if the right wins, that means services are going to be cut.
The French political class is absolutely terrified of increasing taxes on the wealthy, because it is afraid wealthy people will leave the country en masse. It is the only realistic way out of the mess, though.
They're always saying that if America, or one of its states, institutes a Wealth Tax, the Sociopath Oligarchs will all leave that state, or the country (as if that would be a bad thing), and now they're using that excuse in France.
But if ALL the moral countries do a Wealth Tax, where will the Sociopathic Oligarchs go? The only places for them will be scummy countries that will welcome them, and then the Sociopathic Oligarchs become their problem.
Let's just make the whole world inhospitable for Sociopathic Oligarchs.
wealthy people will leave the country en masse
I find this so strange, wealthy people actually bring very little into an economy, and most will live wherever the fuck they want, they see taxes as just the price of doing business. It’s only right wing politicians and right wing wealthy people that keep this myth alive.
They cannot take their factories, mines, shops, etc with them. They may take their money, but their money is usually tied to their business. If their business is nationalized, because they left it behind, their wealth suddenly is backed by nothing.
They won‘t leave. They never do. Maybe a hand full of them but they contributed nothing to society anyway but en large the rich never leave in droves over taxes. Their businesses are in this country and they simply can‘t just move it someplace else without huge upfront costs. Even the centrists know this. They‘re just afraid to not be welcomed at lavish events anymore I guess. And some of them are straight up bought I assume. But yeah, tax the rich god damnit. They‘re all bark and no bite.
Remember when "experts" said they'd all leave NYC if Mamdani put on his Pied-a-terre Tax? The result was that more of them actually moved TO NYC.
Actually they didn't. Most of them had other homes in states with no property taxes, and they called THAT their primary residence, instead of NYC, where they'd have to pay State and City taxes. Most of them didn't want to leave NYC, so they just owned up to the fact that their NYC home was their primary residence, and now they'll have to pay a tiny bit of tax.
They could always do that, but given a choice, they'd rather not. Mamdani just removed the choice.
for one, i don't think that they actually mean "wealthy individuals" but "big companies", like adidas producing shoes or sth. basically there is absolutely not a single reason why such a big company would be located in country X and not country Y besides economic incentives. realistically, they could produce equally well everywhere in the world, they're just gonna go wherever labor costs and taxes are lowest. these jobs would be lost if the company leaves.
then again, these companies probably already moved to china 30 years ago. and who's left probably has a hard time leaving.
also it should be noted that this kind of analysis lacks vision. sure, jobs would be lost. so what, we're gonna have mass unemployment one way or another. better to accept that and deal with that, instead of clinging to an old economic system that is doomed to fail anyways.
anyways to solve problems, one needs to patiently think about them. since being patient is not spectacular, few are inclined towards it, and even fewer succeed. so we're not gonna get good answers to any of the world's problems until somebody who (1) cares and (2) has a good understanding of the world bothers to actually make up meaningful solutions, i figure.
They bring very little in compared to their wealth, and comparatively very little tax wise, but lets not pretend like they bring little to the economy itself.
They do spend money where they are. They dine in fine restaurants, they hire private chefs, they have staff for their houses, they buy fancy cars etc. They probably employ thousands of people in various personal support roles (I'm not talking jobs like they run a business and have 10,000 employees, but the cleaning people, the personal assistants, the chauffeurs etc. Things they would have wherever they are even without a business.)
There are entire industries that even cater to them, like if they purchase a mega yacht and france has that industry.
The do something for the local economy, they just pay little taxes besides any local consumption taxes, but taxes is not the entire economy.
Edits to better express what i was trying to say.
Suppose that is all true. At every juncture I would reject the notion that they are creating an opportunity or job that would not otherwise exist (nor, on the whole, paying those workers any better).
There are more than enough restaurants, gardens, houses, private hire vehicles, shipbuilders etc to support those chefs, gardeners, cleaners, drivers and shipwrights without ever having to do with anybody with any wealth.
More expensive items, such as fancy cars, do not create the same number of jobs commensurate with the price increase, they generally make less of them, and increased profit margins go to the benefit of investors, not workers.
I’m not an economist or AI BS user, so there are probably words for these phenomena that idk sry
Staff wise you're probably right that they don't get paid much more than the middle/high wages of that area. Like if a personal chef is typically $80k, maybe this one get $100-120k kinda thing, but I doubt it'd suddenly become $200k if we used these as example numbers.
But the businesses like the restaurants that cater to the HNW individuals will bring in more profits as they can charge stupid amounts for the meals. Their staff probably get tipped better, at least if it's a tipping country, which then ends up in the economy even at the lower staff levels.
For things like the cars, like you said that probably employees less people job wise and the wealth concenrates into the owner of the fancy car shop and a small amount of sales staff, but they also will be able to spend their higher earnings at more expensive places too.
I'm not saying things would just collapse from all of this kind of spending going away, I'm just saying it's not nothing and it does have an impact.
Isn't France's pension system to also blame for this mess? And doesn't France already have pretty high taxes on the wealthy?
The alternatives are the left under a very unpopular candidate and the right under an extremely unpopular candidate.
Oof, so you're about to enter the arena the US did in 2016, huh? Reminds me of Clinton vs. Trump.
(Not to say that Mrs. Clinton is in any way a "leftist" politician but Democrats get a pass as being "left" because of our abysmal education over here. The thread is that they were both deeply disliked by large sections of the voting populace, leading to even worse outcomes.)
The French political class is absolutely terrified of increasing taxes on the wealthy, because it is afraid wealthy people will leave the country en masse. It is the only realistic way out of the mess, though.
I guess all the new rich people moving into New York City isn't enough proof to them that the wealthy actually like where they live and their whole "we'll pull up and leave!" is the biggest load of horseshit.
ALSO I would love for these governments just to fucking call that bullshit for what it is, and if they try to fucking leave because of taxes take every fucking penny and piece of property they own in your country and tell them to get fucked and figure it out when they get where they're going but they're not taking the wealth they built in this country with them.
I love how the article seems to equate “failure of the state” with police running out of ammo and not ending the violence quickly enough. Not the decades of policies that led to thousands of people feeling like they need to destroy infrastructure.
They're citing a mayor whose town hall got burned down
Media is complicit with Epstein class
I worked in local television news media for a decade in the early 2000's.
It's worse than that: we just don't even teach these people how to be actual journalists.
I remember working in production, catching a new, state-level important story, with court documents proving as much. I printed it and put it on the desk of several reporters. The producer refused to run the story because they "didn't see the story on the AP Newswire." In other words they refused to run the story until a major network ran it first. Three weeks later they ran the story after someone else ran it first.
Recall, I worked in production. I wasn't a newsie. I had better news instincts than these fucking clowns who went to school for it.
It's just rubes saying "yes daddy I'll do whatever you tell me" all the way down.
journalists don't get paid very much AFAIK, so it's not a position who is attracting talent. that's why we see a whole fucking lot of mediocre news articles who fail to comprehend what's actually important.
that and because it's not a very "respectable" position in the eyes of the public. have you ever met a child who said "i want to be a journalist" and their parents were joyous? i haven't. if anything at all, you can expect your parents to give you a lecture of how it's not a "good" job, you won't "earn any bread" with it.
The state views inability to control it's populace as a "failure" because the states we have enabled to become our modern governance have stopped actually giving a shit about their actual constituents and consistently roll out the red carpet for the rich and corrupt. Loss of control is a failure, real democracy is a failure. The real issue is they clearly (and the media as well) don't have the same goals as the people they lord over.
They have never had the same goals nor given a shit. This is nothing new. This piece of writing is almost 100 years old now:
What is it that every one wants most in life? What do you want most?
After all, we are all the same under our skins. Whoever you be — man or woman, rich or poor, aristocrat or tramp, white, yellow, red or black, of whatever land, nationality, or religion — we are all alike in feeling cold and hunger, love and hate; we all fear disaster and disease, and try to keep away from harm and death.
What you most want out of life, what you fear most, that also is true, in the main, of your neighbor.
Learned men have written big books, many of them, on sociology, psychology, and many other ‘ologies’, to tell you what you want, but no two of those books ever agree. And yet I think that you know very well without them what you want.
They have studied and written and speculated so much about this, for them so difficult a question, that you, the individual, have become entirely lost in their philosophies. And they have at last come to the conclusion that you, my friend, don’t count at all. What’s important, they say, is not you, but ‘the whole’, all the people together. This ‘whole’ they call ‘society’, ‘the commonwealth’, or ‘the State’, and the wiseacres have actually decided that it makes no difference if you, the individual, are miserable so long as ‘society’ is all right. Somehow they forget to explain how ‘society’ or ‘the whole’ can be all right if the single members of it are wretched.
So they go on spinning their philosophic webs and producing thick volumes to find out where you really enter in the scheme of things called life, and what you really want.
But you yourself know very well what you want, and so does your neighbor.
You want to be well and healthy; you want to be free, to serve no master, to crawl and humiliate yourself before no man; you want to have well-being for yourself, your family, and those near and dear to you. And not to be harassed and worried by the fear of to-morrow.
You may feel sure that every one else wants the same. So the whole matter seems to stand this way:
You want health, liberty, and well-being. Every one is like yourself in this respect.
Therefore we all seek the same thing in life.
Then why should we not all seek it together, by joint effort, helping each other in it?
Why should we cheat and rob, kill and murder each other, if we all seek the same thing? Aren’t you entitled to the things you want as well as the next man?
Or is it that we can secure our health, liberty, and well-being better by fighting and slaughtering each other?
Or because there is no other way?
Let us look into this.
Does it not stand to reason that if we all want the same thing in life, if we have the same aim, then our interests must also be the same? In that case we should live like brothers, in peace and friendship; we should be good to each other, and help each other all we can.
But you know that it is not at all that way in life. You know that we do not live like brothers. You know that the world is full of strife and war, of misery, injustice, and wrong, of crime, poverty, and oppression.
Why is it that way then?
It is because, though we all have the same aim in life, our interests are different. It is this that makes all the trouble in the world.
Just think it over yourself.
Suppose you want to get a pair of shoes or a hat. You go into the store and you try to buy what you need as reasonably and cheaply as you can. That is your interest. But the store-keeper’s interest is to sell it to you as dearly as he can, because then his profit will be greater. That is because everything in the life we live is built on making a profit, one way or another. We live in a system of profit-making.
Now, it is plain that if we have to make profits out of each other, then our interests cannot be the same. They must be different and often even opposed to each other.
In every country you will find people who live by making a profit out of others. Those who make the biggest profits are rich. Those who cannot make profits are poor. The only people who cannot make any profits are the workers. You can therefore understand that the interests of the workers cannot be the same as the interests of the other people. That is why you will find in every country several classes of people with entirely different interests.
From Now and After by Alexander Berkman. Chapter 1: What Do You Want Out Of Life?
Available to read or download in multiple formats, for free, here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism
They keep alluding to migrants being the violent ones, am I understanding this correctly? Also they mention this was organized crime basically? Any facts to back that up?
I'm wondering how they actually plan on addressing the root issue here of wealth inequality and cost of living issues... The country's finances are not doing well from what I can see...
the public broadcaster of Belgium today called them 'professional rioters'. No follow-up explanation, just casually planting that seed...
I scanned the reddit frontpage today like I occasionally do to see if there's any news that hasn't hit the Fediverse yet... and let me tell you, the propaganda bots are out in fucking force because I saw numerous videos of the French protests where it was black masked jerks harassing individuals, stealing, looting. Of course it was in the "usual suspects" of subs like /r/publicfreakout.
At least three posts within the first two pages of results on reddit when you're not logged in that are nothing but videos and comments dragging the entire protest.
There is a concerted effort to make the claim the students never cared about education, they just wanted to criminally wreck everything. I don't know who, but someone with a lot of money is pushing this narrative hard.
Lol, migrants. Everyone's pissed af because there is no future, rich fucks keep getting richer and everyone else trying to survive. That's not about migrants
Nah that's propaganda. The violent ones are mostly the police, and the occasional dipshit. It started with highschoolers/college kids wanting decent learning conditions. As in, having teachers, chairs to sit on, not wanting rats in classrooms,and school not crumbling onto them.
The answer to that from the government was to send riot police and maim the kids. Then all the media focused on the material damage, and it went downhill from that. The government spends more daily to squash the protest than it would have helping the kids.
Then the yellow jackets started to organise again as well and planned on having a big protest yesterday. It went smoothly for the most part, except for the police (unsurprisingly) pepper spraying protesters left and right before the protests even began. Then it went downhill because of rioters and looters (a sizable portion of them being cops, caught in camera, again, unsurprisingly), and the historic town hall of Limoges burning down (I don't think we know who started the fire yet).
Basically it's the government gaslighting us, and blaming us for material violence after 10 or so years of systemic and institutional violence.
and all it took was action from the “bad” protestors not protesting “the right way”.