1. The only thing that really matters is whether the security services will continue to follow orders, specifically, the order to shoot. So far, they do not appear anywhere near the point where they will refuse to do so.
2. Barring a change in 1. above, Macron will continue to survive politically. This is not because of any skills on his part, but because if he were gone, there is a non-zero chance that Le Pen would get elected. The overriding goal of All Right Thinking People in France is to prevent Le Pen or someone like Le Pen from getting into power. Even if, by some fluke she were to find herself in the Champs Elysee, the Better Sort Of People, the people who control the institutions, would do whatever it takes to prevent Le Pen from actually ruling.
France, like the rest of Europe, will continue to trudge to its demise, rather than question its Atlanticist orientation, or the current power structure.
I agree with the broad thrust of the article, but I have to admit to smirking a bit when you brought up the lack of a strong two party system as a contributor to the problems in France. A lot of people in US, in particular, imagine that the root of all problems here is the two party system. They imagine that if there are lots of parties out there, competing for "unconventional" voters, somehow things will be better, and to them, I usually suggest that they should look at dysfunctional multiparty politics in various parts of Europe, of which France has increasingly become the foremost example. The real problem, as I see it, affecting politics in most countries, is that parties have mostly become dysfunctional: when parties/coalitions/whatever work properly, they are vehicles for brokering compromise, allowing for horse trading or whatever to take place behind the scenes so that they can vote together to make policy whether they really "agree" in their hearts or not. This doesn't say, necessarily, that the policy produced would necessarily be "good"--you still need some publicly minded leadership to direct the compromise and bargaining in some productive direction. But the bottom line is that "parties" as embodiment of "ideology" is a self-destructive trap. If you cannot easily define what a particular coalition is about, that's likely a sign of a well-run, highly effective party. In this dimension, If you believe that the most important thing for a party or a coalition is to have an "ideology" that all its members somehow believe it, that's the thinking of comfortable elitists who think themselves above practical consequences of policymaking. (I'd describe the well-known saying about parties in US by Will Rodgers as prattlings of a nitwit. When no one know what the Democrats were all about, they were doing a wondrous job as a party.)
This description, which, incidentally, describes the decline of parties in US as policymaking organization (where you could get a bunch of people who don't share same views together and have them vote for some policy as a group), applies to the party/coalition politics in France (whose, politics shares a lot of characteristics with US.) except, well, the French citizens seem more hotheaded than we are when it comes to taking to the streets.
The political establishment, whether in France or the US, has mastered the art of narrowing the voters' choice to one of two carefully vetted corporate imperialist muppets. In the US, this comes down to Team R Tweedledee and Team D Tweddledum. In France, there is a revolving cast of muppets. Regardless, once the voters trudge joylessly to the polls to select whichever muppet they hope to be the lesser evil, it is proclaimed that The Voice Of The People Has Spoken!
When an unvetted candidate somehow slips through, the political establishment makes damn sure that the intruder is put down with a quickness, yo. Russians (who are well known for their Pied Piper like advertising skills and also their mastery of Telepathic Mind Control) are blamed for any inconvenient election results, which are ipso facto illegitimate. Otherwise, The Voice Of The People Has Spoken!
The real problem is 'Representative' democracy, and further to that the problem of elite capture of political power, however it is named. Representative democracy can now be seen as a failed system wherever it exists. (Look at the US, where democracy is a commercial transaction, the UK, where it is a mere 'changing of the guard' and real leftist input is frozen out, and the above noted example of France). We have to seriously look at, discuss and formulate a system where sortition can be made to work in large populations, or work out how to split large populations up (while presumably retaining some sort of national cohesion), in order to make sortition feasible.
Obviously, due to the population numbers involved in most modern countries this will not be an easy task, but if we want to achieve a fair and equitable political system, and defeat the attempts of the wealthy to dominate politics in pursuit of their own interests, this is something we must attempt.
The original Greek definition of democracy implied sortition. They would describe our present arrangements broadly as 'oligarchy' of in more extreme cases as 'kleptocracy'. Whatever they are, they are ruinous to the mass of the populations involved.
One might say that if the practice of democracy is really "transactional," we'd actually get better results. People who'd pay for representation would be actually the people with big stakes in the system and they would get useful results in return for their payment while those who are causing economic damage through their influence would get stopped.
For instance, we talk about MIC paying for wars in return for profits becomes puzzling because wars and their consequences cause far more economic damage than gains for MIC, and some of these big losses are incurred by big players whom you'd think have serious clout. So the problem is that such democracy as we have now is not even properly (or, at least, not efficiently) transactional. Rather, we have an unholy combination of moralism and transactions. For the masses who don't have too much of a stake, politics wears a moral face--we are doing "the right thing" (tm). This moral face, in turn, actually stops the big interests with much to lose from stepping in. But smaller, much more parasitic interests, go along for the ride and profit in the shadow of moralism. How much do they drive the picture, though, I don't think anyone can say for sure. But I think the problem is the (false) moral face that politics wears much more than the profiteers who go for the ride.
I would propose that, rather than (superficially) less transactional, politics ought to become more overtly transactional, so that the "buyer" can actually demand accountability. What we have now, instead, is a shakedown racket. The gangsters don't need to deliver on tangible "protection" or whatever they are nominally selling, but they can make life hard for people if they don't pay up. If things actually get "transactional," they would actually have to deliver, instead of giving cuts to their flunkies.
"For instance, we talk about MIC paying for wars in return for profits becomes puzzling because wars and their consequences cause far more economic damage than gains for MIC, and some of these big losses are incurred by big players whom you'd think have serious clout."
This is true, but those gains accumulate to a concentrated people of great influence and authority who work together, who will fight like heel to protect their turf and all of whom have their senator on speed-dial.
Meanwhile, the losses are spread out among the rest of society as a whole, and this has not so far caused enough damage for the rest of us to actually do anything about this.
There are concentrated gains on the other side, too, often much larger than concentrated gains for friends of warmongers. For instance, people talked about "war for oil" in course of the war in Iraq (Bush II variety). But the wars and instability they caused, especially the one that got drawn out as long as they did, were far more costly to the oil industry in general than finding a peaceful negotiated solution would have. The big financial winners, Halliburton etc, are, in the grand scheme of things, small players. So they won lots--but they cost even larger (And presumably influential) actors an order of magnitude more, not to mention several orders magnitude more on the whole--but much of which probably occurred to the small players without political clout so they may not count as much. Same story with the current politics of sanctions in Europe: the big corporations and unions in Germany, supposedly very influential in German domestic politics, are huge losers from the current turn of events, for instance. I find the assertion that they don't count because of the subservient position of Germany to US in world affairs hard to believe: it smacks of the notion of omnipotent US govt that can somehow make water flow uphill if it likes (analogous to the Russia derangement syndrome after 2016, I think). As I understand it, German public, especially the educated and well off, really do buy into the Russia narrative about Ukraine and Russia and they will turn on those who say otherwise--especially if their argument is mainly economic: How dare you put your profits above morality, if you will. So the obvious huge losses by Exxon/Mobile from wars and instability in the Middle East or BASF from the deteriorating relations with Russia are dismissed with the same moralizing rhetoric should they be brought up. So the Big Oil does not dare criticize the military adventurism in the Middle East and Big German Industries stay quiet about Ukraine mess (and, I suppose, they are offered some compensation prizes--which I imagine are much smaller than what they would have gotten IF things remained peaceful). One might even add the US military to this mixture: there are enough soldiers, even at the top, who are doubtlessly growing frightened of the prospect that everything will go downhill very fast. But they don't dare publicly speak up against the madness being sustained by collective and quite genuine faith in the morality of the insanity by the influential subset of the public who will not be persuaded away from their mindset. This is the M of the MIC. I would also point out that, while the war industry might want prolonged tensions that don't boil out of control, i.e. people are worried enough that they'll buy arms, but not impoverished enough that they can't afford them or sickened/destroyed enough of war that they'd give up on warfare, they are not too crazy about warfare getting too intense in the short-to-medium term: they may gain short term windfalls, but they run risk of going broke in the long run when things get out of control. See how well Krupp did by 1945.
Splendid little wars, yes. But you have to be insane to think that a hot war with Russia or China are going to be splendid little wars...and even Iraq and Afghanistan didn't wind up being so splendid or little, after all, and given the total inability of US leadership to wrap up even little wars, even the I of the MIC has to be worried about the dangers of too much warmongering. The inability of US leadership to wrap up wars, in turn, comes from excessive moral zeal and its consequences:. If Saddam Hussein is so evil, how can you make long term peace with him? And, perversely, what's wrong with a genocide or two if Saddam Hussein is so evil? I suppose, tomorrow, the argument will be "what's wrong with the next mass extinction event that will eradicate humanity from Earth since Vladimir Putin is so evil?" But mass extinctions are bad for business, after all, if the I of the MIC were the ones in charge.
So I think the moral hysteria comes first. It shuts down the competing economic argument, especially if they come from big politico-economic players whom we'd normally think as wielding disproportionate political influence (and maybe they do in other situations). Yes, there are short term profiteers, but they do so by going along with (and hiding behind) the moral hysteria, not by being the main driver of the warmongering.
"As I understand it, German public, especially the educated and well off, really do buy into the Russia narrative about Ukraine and Russia and they will turn on those who say otherwise--especially if their argument is mainly economic: How dare you put your profits above morality, if you will."
I know plenty of Germans of influence and authority. Among such people, questioning German subservience is a faux pas akin to interrupting a High Papal Mass to demand that the person who just farted please identify himself.
It doesn't matter how bad the stink is, You Just Don't Do That, and Europeans, if they are nothing else, they are all about The Done Thing.
"I know plenty of Germans of influence and authority. Among such people, questioning German subservience is a faux pas akin to interrupting a High Papal Mass to demand that the person who just farted please identify himself. . . It doesn't matter how bad the stink is, You Just Don't Do That, and Europeans, if they are nothing else, they are all about The Done Thing."
This has been my experience as well. For years my German friends (mostly academics and professionals) assured me that Germans are very savvy when it comes to politics and global affairs. I more-or-less took them at their word. All that has changed since the Ukraine conflict. I now count the Germans—or at least the German professional managerial class—as the most deeply brainwashed and conformist people in the world. One acquaintance from this group has privately shared his doubts with me, but says he is terrified to admit this to even his closest friends.
The only Germans outside the AFD who seem to perceive the obvious are followers of Sahra Wagenknecht.
That seems to me like the primacy of "morality" in politics, however perverted it might be, the kind that even the big economic interests dare not oppose for fear of looking like "bad people" behaving inappropriately. My view is that some economic actors might be positioned to catalyze events that the society is already predisposed to undertake because of the prevailing moral mindset among its public, especially the subset that wields influence, but it is not particularly because of the money that they have--although it doubtlessly helps. The opposing groups, even if they have (even more) money and have political influence in other dimensions, cannot oppose them because they are silenced by the moral dimension. Chalking up things to the evils of big money dictating events, in fact, strengthens the ability of the misguided morality shutting down opposing views, IMHO.
I find your assertion that "wars and their consequences cause far more economic damage than gains for MIC" puzzling. Perhaps you could expand on that? It appears to me that in the US there are munitions and arms manufacture firms which directly and hugely benefit from wars, and a much wider spread of associated industries such as medicine and pharmaceuticals which benefit indirectly. In fact, any damage is generally to other countries, (and within the US only to the poorer classes who make up the front line troops). The only downside is through lack of funding for internal infrastructure, and to an extent the damage to the US reputation, plus some to internal morale - although these do not seem to affect the richer classes. So the idea that war is not a general benefit to the share-holding, political and managerial classes US fails, as far as I can see.
A couple of decades ago I read and was deeply impressed by Bernard Manin's "The Principles of Representative Government." But I can't imagine the oligarchs who benefit from the current system ever loosening their grip. And Manin's ideas are so contrary to the myths we've been taught, I can't imagine a popular movement forcing the issue.
On the other hand, I never imagined I'd encounter these ideas in an online forum. I commend you for your effort!
I really think that this applies to the majority of politicians in Europe, in the UK, Canada and the USA…..I cannot make up my mind about Australia….although the Liberals might fit the bill…..
“ He’s a representative of a new generation of politicians, with a technocratic mind-set but very little technical knowledge, for whom senior political office is just another job on their CV, bringing in money and status, and the chances of profiting from it afterwards.”
Very much applies with its different turns and specifics in each country. We can say that the EU is kept united by the stubborn political ineptitude of the leadership at both state and EU level with, may be, a couple of exceptions if we want to be generous. The current crop of "leaders" are all more or less as weak as Macron, though Macron can be among the top 5 contemptuous globalists that can be counted. Include there von der Leyen, Borrell, Habeck, Baerbock. Others are more discreet but drink the same kool-aid (Sánchez, Meloni...) . Aurelien provides here a useful framework to identify them. Some of these are people whose main objective is to prosper themselves within their circles, become rich within the riches, follow and promote their rules without mercy. Do not negotiate, dictate. Never follow diplomatic rules, show contempt for their enemies (the masses included).
I have always found French politics a valuable canary in the coalmine for global politics and used to listen to Les matins de France Culture on a regular basis. You provide a fantastic summary of current events here (It gives me a similar feel to Brice Couturier's perspectives which I appreciated immensely) and it's interesting to see how flip-flop ping from left to right (politiques d'essuie glace) and the centre, strategically keeping out the Front National, could lead to a potential checkmate for the more extreme party of the people. Fascinating how the left has lost the working class to the far right, and the upper middle class to the greens, and the Right parties have to move further to the right to hoover up enough support. It's similar to the UKs New Labour movement alienating it's core voters. France does not however have the inter party fissure of Brexit to contend with. Striking may well become the UK's "Sport nationale" too. Thanks again for this and A+ for your writing style. I wish black mountain analysis (who I very much enjoy and found through you) would take as much care with the written word - it would really make a difference if he asked GPT-chat to tidy things up.
A lot of comments on this thread but none actually addressing the Pensions comments. I feel the Pensions "issue" is one of the top crises rapidly approaching most of the large Western democracies. Health Care and Elderly Care being the 2 key others. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, but it's actually a 4-6-4 locomotive barreling down the track towards us. As demographics progress in the West there is no doubt that our aging societies are in deep do-do.
I can see from Aurelien's comments that he possesses a deep dislike (bordering on hatred?) for Macron. I don't particularly like Macron either but I cant believe that the goal of French pensions reform is as he postulates - "Rather, it’s about making them wait longer to collect a pension in the hope, brutally, that they will die." This seems like a strange comment from the author who says he tries to avoid polemics.
The issue with "Pensions" is quite simply how do you afford to pay for them? I have personally fully paid into a US Company 401K & Longevity Pension, US Social Security, UK National Old Age pension (which you can continue to pay into even after you leave the UK) and finally a UK defined benefit company pension. So I have 5 of those suckers and I am well aware of how lucky I have been to amass them. But I am also very aware of which ones are dependent on the State and in reality, the tax payers funding them. The UK made changes a few back to make the UK pension scheme a more realistic long term funded plan and spends less on pensions that most other Western countries but the pension itself is relatively small. By contrast many of the Western EU nations have significant unfunded pensions which are already costing those nations a fortune and are going to cost a great deal more as this decade progresses.
I am well aware that fiscal rectitude was taken out to the woodshed several years ago and "double tapped" in the back of the head, but as is obvious to many several nations are now cascading into debt at an increasing (it the case of the USA almost exponential) pace. I retired at 65 and probably could have done so at 62, but decided to build up my pensions further because I suspect a time is coming when national pensions will be under severe threat or at a minimum, the real value will be severely eroded due to inflationary pressures.
It is my personal view that there should be no obligation by the State to permit people to retire "early" and pay them a significant pension that is essentially unfunded. The voters should be told what it would take to fund these pension entitlements even if it shocks them. There are ways to fund retirement in old age but nobody will grasp that stinging nettle. But what I personally think is actually irrelevant because it will take a full blown fiscal crisis to bring about any change and the solutions will be unpleasant for all.
I have followed the debate in the USA over Social Security viability ever since coming here in 1988 and it was fairly obvious to me by the year 2000 that changes to Soc.Sec. were essential to maintain its viability. However, as the "Third Rail" of US politics, essentially nothing has been done and all those Soc. Sec. surpluses amassed over many decades were "spent" as part of government general expenditure and IOUs issued into a "Trust Fund". Most Americans still believe that Trust Fund is actually real money when in effect it is simply unfunded future government spending. As we can now see here in the US with the soaring and now PERMANENT trillion dollars annual deficits, that 4-6-4 "fiscal" locomotive I mentioned is rapidly approaching ...........and its light is getting brighter each year.
An analysis of Macron that doesn't start and end with the Attali commission and the demands of the 4-40 misses the mark.
Macron is a puppet put into place to force an agenda through. The items of that agenda are publicly known. Him ramming every reform through, no matter the blood in the streets is him doing the bidding of his paymasters.
And to say the left did nothing with their power is dishonest, Macron reformed the loi travaille, ie loi khomry under Hollande, and of course the state managed to grab all sorts of civil rights from the citizens under the pretext of combating terrorism. But ok boomer, we can put le mariage pour tous, as victory for progress. ..
Time to listen to Soral a bit closer, lest you'll get wool pulled over your eyes when they serve up Ruffin as your future lord and saviour.
One thing that nags regarding retirement age is the contrast between France and the USA. The age for full retirement in America is 67 whereas the new retirement age in France is 3 years earlier at 64. Historically, most Americans retire early at around age 62 even though the full US pension retirement age has been 65 or older (now 67). The widely held interpretation of the age 62 plateau is that this is when the human bodies of laborers just exhaust. Back problems, eyesight, hearing, and chronic arthritis, etc. become debilitating as we humans approach age 60 regardless of nationality.
Macron’s raising the full-retirement age begs two questions. First, are the French just lazier than Americans? Second, is there an economic justification for raising France’s retirement age?
I doubt that the French are lazier than Americans. Early retirement in both countries comes with a penalty – a reduced monthly pension. However, most members of the workforce normally have alternative income sources including other pensions and investments. Thus, early retirement is not an extreme hardship in France or the USA. A slightly larger drop in pension income likely does not justify all the demonstrations.
The answer to the second, economic, question is almost certainly yes. Like the rest of the EU, France’s birth rate has been dropping for years. France must increase the pace of its productivity or raise taxes. But taxes are already quite high in France, so that might be the dilemma that has triggered all the protests. In the end, it is likely that the French will have to increase immigration. As we have seen in the UK, cultural racism can cause many people to endure a drop in standard of living before they will tolerate more immigrants.
Thank you for your input. I agree with you that US-citizen are no lazier than F-citizen. It is also true, as you note, that retiring earlier, as many people do, comes with a penalty. This is true in F, D, CH, A, I, UK and USA and so on and so forth.
My opinion leverages on a 30 years long experience with our - on average friendly - neighbors in F: the word « change » does not belong to the minimum 500 - 1000 words vocabulary.
Let me exaggerate a bit: if it rains, it is the fault of the Gov. If it is too hot, the Gov should have sent our warnings earlier. The Gov is, in F, the Mom for all situations. We call this « l’Etat mammelle ». The pension system is not the only intricate and complex institution. The social safety net in general is a labyrinth. This has a price: some - I hope a minority - can be declared as job less and enjoy financial help from the safety net while they accept a job - on the black market - in a neighbor country. Controls are too rare, sanctions ineffective, so that there is no incentive to be responsible.
Macron, Hollande, Sarkozy, no difference. The ruling « club » (caste dirigeante) self-replicates (ENA) and the people / voters do not trust anymore anyone.
All those who complain against the (abusive) use of the 49.3 miss their target. It is a constitutional rule. Of course any Gov can be tempted to mis-use it. The correct approach, i.m.o., should focus on constitutional reform instead of burning tires at the crossing of two streets.
I’m not sure the general direction of the Essay and the related Comments would be different if another person would be in charge in the Elysée.
As an old « Général une étoile » de Gaulle used to phrase it: comment voulez vous gouverner un pays qui possède une telle variété de fromages.
Complaining in F does not require a « serious reason ». The french complain all the time.
1. The only thing that really matters is whether the security services will continue to follow orders, specifically, the order to shoot. So far, they do not appear anywhere near the point where they will refuse to do so.
2. Barring a change in 1. above, Macron will continue to survive politically. This is not because of any skills on his part, but because if he were gone, there is a non-zero chance that Le Pen would get elected. The overriding goal of All Right Thinking People in France is to prevent Le Pen or someone like Le Pen from getting into power. Even if, by some fluke she were to find herself in the Champs Elysee, the Better Sort Of People, the people who control the institutions, would do whatever it takes to prevent Le Pen from actually ruling.
France, like the rest of Europe, will continue to trudge to its demise, rather than question its Atlanticist orientation, or the current power structure.
I agree with the broad thrust of the article, but I have to admit to smirking a bit when you brought up the lack of a strong two party system as a contributor to the problems in France. A lot of people in US, in particular, imagine that the root of all problems here is the two party system. They imagine that if there are lots of parties out there, competing for "unconventional" voters, somehow things will be better, and to them, I usually suggest that they should look at dysfunctional multiparty politics in various parts of Europe, of which France has increasingly become the foremost example. The real problem, as I see it, affecting politics in most countries, is that parties have mostly become dysfunctional: when parties/coalitions/whatever work properly, they are vehicles for brokering compromise, allowing for horse trading or whatever to take place behind the scenes so that they can vote together to make policy whether they really "agree" in their hearts or not. This doesn't say, necessarily, that the policy produced would necessarily be "good"--you still need some publicly minded leadership to direct the compromise and bargaining in some productive direction. But the bottom line is that "parties" as embodiment of "ideology" is a self-destructive trap. If you cannot easily define what a particular coalition is about, that's likely a sign of a well-run, highly effective party. In this dimension, If you believe that the most important thing for a party or a coalition is to have an "ideology" that all its members somehow believe it, that's the thinking of comfortable elitists who think themselves above practical consequences of policymaking. (I'd describe the well-known saying about parties in US by Will Rodgers as prattlings of a nitwit. When no one know what the Democrats were all about, they were doing a wondrous job as a party.)
This description, which, incidentally, describes the decline of parties in US as policymaking organization (where you could get a bunch of people who don't share same views together and have them vote for some policy as a group), applies to the party/coalition politics in France (whose, politics shares a lot of characteristics with US.) except, well, the French citizens seem more hotheaded than we are when it comes to taking to the streets.
The political establishment, whether in France or the US, has mastered the art of narrowing the voters' choice to one of two carefully vetted corporate imperialist muppets. In the US, this comes down to Team R Tweedledee and Team D Tweddledum. In France, there is a revolving cast of muppets. Regardless, once the voters trudge joylessly to the polls to select whichever muppet they hope to be the lesser evil, it is proclaimed that The Voice Of The People Has Spoken!
When an unvetted candidate somehow slips through, the political establishment makes damn sure that the intruder is put down with a quickness, yo. Russians (who are well known for their Pied Piper like advertising skills and also their mastery of Telepathic Mind Control) are blamed for any inconvenient election results, which are ipso facto illegitimate. Otherwise, The Voice Of The People Has Spoken!
This. It's really hard to accept any analysis that doesn't start with this.
The real problem is 'Representative' democracy, and further to that the problem of elite capture of political power, however it is named. Representative democracy can now be seen as a failed system wherever it exists. (Look at the US, where democracy is a commercial transaction, the UK, where it is a mere 'changing of the guard' and real leftist input is frozen out, and the above noted example of France). We have to seriously look at, discuss and formulate a system where sortition can be made to work in large populations, or work out how to split large populations up (while presumably retaining some sort of national cohesion), in order to make sortition feasible.
Obviously, due to the population numbers involved in most modern countries this will not be an easy task, but if we want to achieve a fair and equitable political system, and defeat the attempts of the wealthy to dominate politics in pursuit of their own interests, this is something we must attempt.
The original Greek definition of democracy implied sortition. They would describe our present arrangements broadly as 'oligarchy' of in more extreme cases as 'kleptocracy'. Whatever they are, they are ruinous to the mass of the populations involved.
One might say that if the practice of democracy is really "transactional," we'd actually get better results. People who'd pay for representation would be actually the people with big stakes in the system and they would get useful results in return for their payment while those who are causing economic damage through their influence would get stopped.
For instance, we talk about MIC paying for wars in return for profits becomes puzzling because wars and their consequences cause far more economic damage than gains for MIC, and some of these big losses are incurred by big players whom you'd think have serious clout. So the problem is that such democracy as we have now is not even properly (or, at least, not efficiently) transactional. Rather, we have an unholy combination of moralism and transactions. For the masses who don't have too much of a stake, politics wears a moral face--we are doing "the right thing" (tm). This moral face, in turn, actually stops the big interests with much to lose from stepping in. But smaller, much more parasitic interests, go along for the ride and profit in the shadow of moralism. How much do they drive the picture, though, I don't think anyone can say for sure. But I think the problem is the (false) moral face that politics wears much more than the profiteers who go for the ride.
I would propose that, rather than (superficially) less transactional, politics ought to become more overtly transactional, so that the "buyer" can actually demand accountability. What we have now, instead, is a shakedown racket. The gangsters don't need to deliver on tangible "protection" or whatever they are nominally selling, but they can make life hard for people if they don't pay up. If things actually get "transactional," they would actually have to deliver, instead of giving cuts to their flunkies.
"For instance, we talk about MIC paying for wars in return for profits becomes puzzling because wars and their consequences cause far more economic damage than gains for MIC, and some of these big losses are incurred by big players whom you'd think have serious clout."
This is true, but those gains accumulate to a concentrated people of great influence and authority who work together, who will fight like heel to protect their turf and all of whom have their senator on speed-dial.
Meanwhile, the losses are spread out among the rest of society as a whole, and this has not so far caused enough damage for the rest of us to actually do anything about this.
There are concentrated gains on the other side, too, often much larger than concentrated gains for friends of warmongers. For instance, people talked about "war for oil" in course of the war in Iraq (Bush II variety). But the wars and instability they caused, especially the one that got drawn out as long as they did, were far more costly to the oil industry in general than finding a peaceful negotiated solution would have. The big financial winners, Halliburton etc, are, in the grand scheme of things, small players. So they won lots--but they cost even larger (And presumably influential) actors an order of magnitude more, not to mention several orders magnitude more on the whole--but much of which probably occurred to the small players without political clout so they may not count as much. Same story with the current politics of sanctions in Europe: the big corporations and unions in Germany, supposedly very influential in German domestic politics, are huge losers from the current turn of events, for instance. I find the assertion that they don't count because of the subservient position of Germany to US in world affairs hard to believe: it smacks of the notion of omnipotent US govt that can somehow make water flow uphill if it likes (analogous to the Russia derangement syndrome after 2016, I think). As I understand it, German public, especially the educated and well off, really do buy into the Russia narrative about Ukraine and Russia and they will turn on those who say otherwise--especially if their argument is mainly economic: How dare you put your profits above morality, if you will. So the obvious huge losses by Exxon/Mobile from wars and instability in the Middle East or BASF from the deteriorating relations with Russia are dismissed with the same moralizing rhetoric should they be brought up. So the Big Oil does not dare criticize the military adventurism in the Middle East and Big German Industries stay quiet about Ukraine mess (and, I suppose, they are offered some compensation prizes--which I imagine are much smaller than what they would have gotten IF things remained peaceful). One might even add the US military to this mixture: there are enough soldiers, even at the top, who are doubtlessly growing frightened of the prospect that everything will go downhill very fast. But they don't dare publicly speak up against the madness being sustained by collective and quite genuine faith in the morality of the insanity by the influential subset of the public who will not be persuaded away from their mindset. This is the M of the MIC. I would also point out that, while the war industry might want prolonged tensions that don't boil out of control, i.e. people are worried enough that they'll buy arms, but not impoverished enough that they can't afford them or sickened/destroyed enough of war that they'd give up on warfare, they are not too crazy about warfare getting too intense in the short-to-medium term: they may gain short term windfalls, but they run risk of going broke in the long run when things get out of control. See how well Krupp did by 1945.
Splendid little wars, yes. But you have to be insane to think that a hot war with Russia or China are going to be splendid little wars...and even Iraq and Afghanistan didn't wind up being so splendid or little, after all, and given the total inability of US leadership to wrap up even little wars, even the I of the MIC has to be worried about the dangers of too much warmongering. The inability of US leadership to wrap up wars, in turn, comes from excessive moral zeal and its consequences:. If Saddam Hussein is so evil, how can you make long term peace with him? And, perversely, what's wrong with a genocide or two if Saddam Hussein is so evil? I suppose, tomorrow, the argument will be "what's wrong with the next mass extinction event that will eradicate humanity from Earth since Vladimir Putin is so evil?" But mass extinctions are bad for business, after all, if the I of the MIC were the ones in charge.
So I think the moral hysteria comes first. It shuts down the competing economic argument, especially if they come from big politico-economic players whom we'd normally think as wielding disproportionate political influence (and maybe they do in other situations). Yes, there are short term profiteers, but they do so by going along with (and hiding behind) the moral hysteria, not by being the main driver of the warmongering.
"As I understand it, German public, especially the educated and well off, really do buy into the Russia narrative about Ukraine and Russia and they will turn on those who say otherwise--especially if their argument is mainly economic: How dare you put your profits above morality, if you will."
I know plenty of Germans of influence and authority. Among such people, questioning German subservience is a faux pas akin to interrupting a High Papal Mass to demand that the person who just farted please identify himself.
It doesn't matter how bad the stink is, You Just Don't Do That, and Europeans, if they are nothing else, they are all about The Done Thing.
"I know plenty of Germans of influence and authority. Among such people, questioning German subservience is a faux pas akin to interrupting a High Papal Mass to demand that the person who just farted please identify himself. . . It doesn't matter how bad the stink is, You Just Don't Do That, and Europeans, if they are nothing else, they are all about The Done Thing."
This has been my experience as well. For years my German friends (mostly academics and professionals) assured me that Germans are very savvy when it comes to politics and global affairs. I more-or-less took them at their word. All that has changed since the Ukraine conflict. I now count the Germans—or at least the German professional managerial class—as the most deeply brainwashed and conformist people in the world. One acquaintance from this group has privately shared his doubts with me, but says he is terrified to admit this to even his closest friends.
The only Germans outside the AFD who seem to perceive the obvious are followers of Sahra Wagenknecht.
That seems to me like the primacy of "morality" in politics, however perverted it might be, the kind that even the big economic interests dare not oppose for fear of looking like "bad people" behaving inappropriately. My view is that some economic actors might be positioned to catalyze events that the society is already predisposed to undertake because of the prevailing moral mindset among its public, especially the subset that wields influence, but it is not particularly because of the money that they have--although it doubtlessly helps. The opposing groups, even if they have (even more) money and have political influence in other dimensions, cannot oppose them because they are silenced by the moral dimension. Chalking up things to the evils of big money dictating events, in fact, strengthens the ability of the misguided morality shutting down opposing views, IMHO.
I find your assertion that "wars and their consequences cause far more economic damage than gains for MIC" puzzling. Perhaps you could expand on that? It appears to me that in the US there are munitions and arms manufacture firms which directly and hugely benefit from wars, and a much wider spread of associated industries such as medicine and pharmaceuticals which benefit indirectly. In fact, any damage is generally to other countries, (and within the US only to the poorer classes who make up the front line troops). The only downside is through lack of funding for internal infrastructure, and to an extent the damage to the US reputation, plus some to internal morale - although these do not seem to affect the richer classes. So the idea that war is not a general benefit to the share-holding, political and managerial classes US fails, as far as I can see.
See my above comment. There is an economic term for what I described above, but I cannot recall it.
Trickle down economics?
No, specifically as why losses can be socialized and profits privatized.
A couple of decades ago I read and was deeply impressed by Bernard Manin's "The Principles of Representative Government." But I can't imagine the oligarchs who benefit from the current system ever loosening their grip. And Manin's ideas are so contrary to the myths we've been taught, I can't imagine a popular movement forcing the issue.
On the other hand, I never imagined I'd encounter these ideas in an online forum. I commend you for your effort!
I really think that this applies to the majority of politicians in Europe, in the UK, Canada and the USA…..I cannot make up my mind about Australia….although the Liberals might fit the bill…..
“ He’s a representative of a new generation of politicians, with a technocratic mind-set but very little technical knowledge, for whom senior political office is just another job on their CV, bringing in money and status, and the chances of profiting from it afterwards.”
Very much applies with its different turns and specifics in each country. We can say that the EU is kept united by the stubborn political ineptitude of the leadership at both state and EU level with, may be, a couple of exceptions if we want to be generous. The current crop of "leaders" are all more or less as weak as Macron, though Macron can be among the top 5 contemptuous globalists that can be counted. Include there von der Leyen, Borrell, Habeck, Baerbock. Others are more discreet but drink the same kool-aid (Sánchez, Meloni...) . Aurelien provides here a useful framework to identify them. Some of these are people whose main objective is to prosper themselves within their circles, become rich within the riches, follow and promote their rules without mercy. Do not negotiate, dictate. Never follow diplomatic rules, show contempt for their enemies (the masses included).
I have always found French politics a valuable canary in the coalmine for global politics and used to listen to Les matins de France Culture on a regular basis. You provide a fantastic summary of current events here (It gives me a similar feel to Brice Couturier's perspectives which I appreciated immensely) and it's interesting to see how flip-flop ping from left to right (politiques d'essuie glace) and the centre, strategically keeping out the Front National, could lead to a potential checkmate for the more extreme party of the people. Fascinating how the left has lost the working class to the far right, and the upper middle class to the greens, and the Right parties have to move further to the right to hoover up enough support. It's similar to the UKs New Labour movement alienating it's core voters. France does not however have the inter party fissure of Brexit to contend with. Striking may well become the UK's "Sport nationale" too. Thanks again for this and A+ for your writing style. I wish black mountain analysis (who I very much enjoy and found through you) would take as much care with the written word - it would really make a difference if he asked GPT-chat to tidy things up.
Hmmm, maybe Brice is a bit more radical these days.
Excellent work! One of your best.
Wow. Loved the article.
A lot of comments on this thread but none actually addressing the Pensions comments. I feel the Pensions "issue" is one of the top crises rapidly approaching most of the large Western democracies. Health Care and Elderly Care being the 2 key others. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, but it's actually a 4-6-4 locomotive barreling down the track towards us. As demographics progress in the West there is no doubt that our aging societies are in deep do-do.
I can see from Aurelien's comments that he possesses a deep dislike (bordering on hatred?) for Macron. I don't particularly like Macron either but I cant believe that the goal of French pensions reform is as he postulates - "Rather, it’s about making them wait longer to collect a pension in the hope, brutally, that they will die." This seems like a strange comment from the author who says he tries to avoid polemics.
The issue with "Pensions" is quite simply how do you afford to pay for them? I have personally fully paid into a US Company 401K & Longevity Pension, US Social Security, UK National Old Age pension (which you can continue to pay into even after you leave the UK) and finally a UK defined benefit company pension. So I have 5 of those suckers and I am well aware of how lucky I have been to amass them. But I am also very aware of which ones are dependent on the State and in reality, the tax payers funding them. The UK made changes a few back to make the UK pension scheme a more realistic long term funded plan and spends less on pensions that most other Western countries but the pension itself is relatively small. By contrast many of the Western EU nations have significant unfunded pensions which are already costing those nations a fortune and are going to cost a great deal more as this decade progresses.
I am well aware that fiscal rectitude was taken out to the woodshed several years ago and "double tapped" in the back of the head, but as is obvious to many several nations are now cascading into debt at an increasing (it the case of the USA almost exponential) pace. I retired at 65 and probably could have done so at 62, but decided to build up my pensions further because I suspect a time is coming when national pensions will be under severe threat or at a minimum, the real value will be severely eroded due to inflationary pressures.
It is my personal view that there should be no obligation by the State to permit people to retire "early" and pay them a significant pension that is essentially unfunded. The voters should be told what it would take to fund these pension entitlements even if it shocks them. There are ways to fund retirement in old age but nobody will grasp that stinging nettle. But what I personally think is actually irrelevant because it will take a full blown fiscal crisis to bring about any change and the solutions will be unpleasant for all.
I have followed the debate in the USA over Social Security viability ever since coming here in 1988 and it was fairly obvious to me by the year 2000 that changes to Soc.Sec. were essential to maintain its viability. However, as the "Third Rail" of US politics, essentially nothing has been done and all those Soc. Sec. surpluses amassed over many decades were "spent" as part of government general expenditure and IOUs issued into a "Trust Fund". Most Americans still believe that Trust Fund is actually real money when in effect it is simply unfunded future government spending. As we can now see here in the US with the soaring and now PERMANENT trillion dollars annual deficits, that 4-6-4 "fiscal" locomotive I mentioned is rapidly approaching ...........and its light is getting brighter each year.
How do you understand what's happening in France now?
Just another protest after yellow wests and pension reform protests or something more dangerous for the government?
An analysis of Macron that doesn't start and end with the Attali commission and the demands of the 4-40 misses the mark.
Macron is a puppet put into place to force an agenda through. The items of that agenda are publicly known. Him ramming every reform through, no matter the blood in the streets is him doing the bidding of his paymasters.
And to say the left did nothing with their power is dishonest, Macron reformed the loi travaille, ie loi khomry under Hollande, and of course the state managed to grab all sorts of civil rights from the citizens under the pretext of combating terrorism. But ok boomer, we can put le mariage pour tous, as victory for progress. ..
Time to listen to Soral a bit closer, lest you'll get wool pulled over your eyes when they serve up Ruffin as your future lord and saviour.
One thing that nags regarding retirement age is the contrast between France and the USA. The age for full retirement in America is 67 whereas the new retirement age in France is 3 years earlier at 64. Historically, most Americans retire early at around age 62 even though the full US pension retirement age has been 65 or older (now 67). The widely held interpretation of the age 62 plateau is that this is when the human bodies of laborers just exhaust. Back problems, eyesight, hearing, and chronic arthritis, etc. become debilitating as we humans approach age 60 regardless of nationality.
Macron’s raising the full-retirement age begs two questions. First, are the French just lazier than Americans? Second, is there an economic justification for raising France’s retirement age?
I doubt that the French are lazier than Americans. Early retirement in both countries comes with a penalty – a reduced monthly pension. However, most members of the workforce normally have alternative income sources including other pensions and investments. Thus, early retirement is not an extreme hardship in France or the USA. A slightly larger drop in pension income likely does not justify all the demonstrations.
The answer to the second, economic, question is almost certainly yes. Like the rest of the EU, France’s birth rate has been dropping for years. France must increase the pace of its productivity or raise taxes. But taxes are already quite high in France, so that might be the dilemma that has triggered all the protests. In the end, it is likely that the French will have to increase immigration. As we have seen in the UK, cultural racism can cause many people to endure a drop in standard of living before they will tolerate more immigrants.
Thank you for your input. I agree with you that US-citizen are no lazier than F-citizen. It is also true, as you note, that retiring earlier, as many people do, comes with a penalty. This is true in F, D, CH, A, I, UK and USA and so on and so forth.
My opinion leverages on a 30 years long experience with our - on average friendly - neighbors in F: the word « change » does not belong to the minimum 500 - 1000 words vocabulary.
Let me exaggerate a bit: if it rains, it is the fault of the Gov. If it is too hot, the Gov should have sent our warnings earlier. The Gov is, in F, the Mom for all situations. We call this « l’Etat mammelle ». The pension system is not the only intricate and complex institution. The social safety net in general is a labyrinth. This has a price: some - I hope a minority - can be declared as job less and enjoy financial help from the safety net while they accept a job - on the black market - in a neighbor country. Controls are too rare, sanctions ineffective, so that there is no incentive to be responsible.
Macron, Hollande, Sarkozy, no difference. The ruling « club » (caste dirigeante) self-replicates (ENA) and the people / voters do not trust anymore anyone.
All those who complain against the (abusive) use of the 49.3 miss their target. It is a constitutional rule. Of course any Gov can be tempted to mis-use it. The correct approach, i.m.o., should focus on constitutional reform instead of burning tires at the crossing of two streets.
I’m not sure the general direction of the Essay and the related Comments would be different if another person would be in charge in the Elysée.
As an old « Général une étoile » de Gaulle used to phrase it: comment voulez vous gouverner un pays qui possède une telle variété de fromages.
Complaining in F does not require a « serious reason ». The french complain all the time.