Thursday 12 February 2009, by Daniel Guéguen

2 Forum messages

• The European Union in 2009

  3 March 2009 14:18, by EuroJack

  Glad to see that I’m not alone in thinking that the EU is run by "pensée unique". But I have trouble believing anybody else than Jose Manuel Barroso as the next Commission President, even though I speak for many when I say that I hope he does not run a second mandate.

  Thanks for the great part on the Lisbon Treaty, really gives a clear view of what it will change in practice regarding the EU decision making pprocess.

  Reply to this message

• The European Union in 2009

  9 December 2009 14:27, by Jemaco

  [first time might not having been sent successfully, sorry if it is the 2nd time you receive this]

  Well, this righteous evocation of a so-called "pensée unique" could stand for being something like "iconoclast". Nevertheless would it make sense, to engage a debate about this newly come "Iconoclast quarrel" :-D.

  "What is simple is wrong, what is complicated does not work" (Paul Valéry) I apologize for this message, certainly too long, but trying to discuss a so rich idea, should perhaps require at least doing better than simply touching it...

  For sure some could resent my mind here. But, so goes any debate, ain’t I right so far?

  Then, with some kind of a candid jurist’s instinct, would I dare to risk the question : "pensée unique"...
  — > What does it stands for, today(1), and applied to the EU(2)?

  Starting from the Orwell’s and Huxley’s masterpieces, an evident use of the "pensée unique", was to qualify the Soviet system... But, Orwell did clearly not restrict the deep idea to only one "system"... Therefore, we can see today, "pensée unique" used about communism system, or also used by some extreme-right parties, speaking about "establishment" (Caricature in France, with our "lovely" Le Pen, but the term could make sense in other ways, i.e. to qualify bank or oil collusions in the history…). Following Orwell, it was just a "Damocles sword" threatening any modern, mediatic, political system in the future...

  I-a/ Then : speaking about some "pensée unique" driving the EU, implies to step backwards considering the general trend: What is the EU driving at ? What is the EU driving force today? Maybe one could find there one of the heavier reasons why people mistrust the EU for long.

  Many EU servants are daily squeezed, the same goes certainly for the other EU-practitioners in their daily task. Very few succeed in taking this step backward, trying to take a farsighted look at the EU. And some excessive survivals do not help (France/Germany : some appearances of emotive friendship, hiding a constant French distrust for the German economic efficiency, one could find others examples, Germany/Poland, and so on...)

  Thus, maybe it is hard to see the global evolution under all these daily tasks, with interests inducing old rivalries... With no "brain", moved by a constant will to overrun this state of fact, this is not about an "evolution", but about an ***"involution" of the EU*** it would perhaps be relevant to speak about... This is not hard to believe ***Competition replaced the "building together" spirit of the EU "Golden Age"...***

  I-b/ But deeper than only in the EU, this "pensée unique" is not only to be linked to Barroso’s "reign". Deeper could we find the decline of what is still named "Common interest" (on the long run), and this could be relevant for the EU, but also for the global world. Taking only one example : an appearance of growth through a service economy, hiding declining fundamentals key-figures. As economically speaking, in the history, it was ever more relevant to analyze steel production than taking "only" the GDP-growth. The point here is, perhaps the EU should be more ambitious than liberalizing online-betting, which has nothing to deal with any ***"civilization" or "development" project***. It is daily business. Maybe necessary to deal with, but perhaps not sufficient. Lisbon clarifies, bring efficiency and some legitimacy. But the question "what for?" remains expectant.

  I-c/ The original, historical goal of the ECC, that prevailed at its beginning (through the beginning of the CAP, a worthy example...), was to build a geographic area of equal level of development (enhancing the poorest regions/countries...), and then bound to expand to other countries... This could be summarized as an "upward globalization" (bringing development to every countries, step by step, at least building a coherent economical area).

  But today, this ideal seems having been challenged, and properly speaking, defeated (at least temporarily) by a second model: some "from below" globalization, leading to an entire geographic area, inducing a leveling of every better economical conditions... Generating misunderstanding, and even resentment (against the EU today) because of poverty.

  ***Resentment, first point.***

  II-a/ Well, perhaps is this here like breaking through an opened door. BUT the banishment of this first "globalization from above", today unfairly reduced to some bad "protectionism", raises questions about the relevance of international rules that have established this banishment as a dogma.

  Therefore, venturing to also appear as being something like... "iconoclastic", or just by trying to ***"root out the evil", one could summarize in two points the governing "pensée unique" in the EU today*** (both are valid for the UE and the whole world) :

  • The fiction of equality between states, restricting international development (help from the richer states to poorer states indirectly prohibited, therefore ACP went down, and others "deteriorating terms of trade", WTO rules…). No way, now, to help the development of the poorest countries (outside the EU).
  • Some creeping "intellectual terrorism" about economics : Adam Smith won against Friedrich List(and not Keynes), and with the help of some Friedman’s monetarist sham, at the turn of post-industrial United States in the 60s. By the way, irony of the history’s mishaps shows, that List was forgotten in favor of Keynes (I dare to risk a double reason: "Deutscher Sonderweg", and perhaps also to legitimate this "intellectual terrorism": "Keynes was wrong, demand is not building an economy by itself alone").

  II-b/We saw in 2008 the limit of a financial model, but clearly foreseeable, as there were already brilliant precedents: this, is the historical, financial model of British development, since the nineteenth century (1846 could stand for a beginning, with the "Rogue" laws on wheat), as opposed to the German model of development of List : In retrospect, it is very interesting to read the words of Henry C. Carey (architect of the Lincoln’s economic policy), evoking (1851) an "unfounded and artificial" system, ruining his own people, and also Peshine Smith (1853) speaking of an English "shopkeeper" instinct ("Buy cheap, sell dear", wealth measured by the rate of profits, made at least against his own people...), against a German "producer" instinct (wealth measured by the increase of total produced goods, necessarily inducing some constant technical progress...).

  The first model reduces costs over and over, to remain competitive. The second one (under auspices of the State) invests heavily in research, ensure long-term and low-cost credits, built and maintains infrastructure (instead of letting it to private "buy cheap,sell dear" logic without supervision...) and everything that can help the domestic economy (under the protection of trade barriers, gradually widening afterwards).

  Here is the (summarized) origin of the German "miracle", and at the same time of the crisis of the British system (late nineteenth century), this parallel situation indirectly causing trade tensions that led to a disaster.

  This opposition is today largely forgotten, as history (temporarily?) decided in favor of the British economical logic, which now prevails throughout the world.

  II-c/ Applied to the EU today, two consequences (short-term/long-term):

   In the short term, it "kills" the EU (as a development model, "from above "), and by extension, it kills "in the egg" every other model that the EU could inspire (geographic area of gradual development , with final aim to unite the world trade, but only after some upward harmonization).
   But in the long-term, with an effort of foresight: the most insidious part of this "pensée unique" today, is that history could repeat itself: it is indeed arguable that the "shopkeeper logic" does not help peace in the world. The recent financial crisis should talk to anyone endowed with any historical culture, beyond the strict events, as a remembrance of the global financial situation before the First World War. Very few had seen it at the time, on time...

  The EU, originally developed in a wave of consciousness (the ashes of the "world of yesterday"), today loses its meaning, influence and ideological attractiveness as an "other, practicable way", as it frantically takes on his own the British free-trade indiscriminately.

  Then, in fact, new models (parallel to the decline of the EU, as a model) are to be found in the famous "BRICs" emerging countries:
   The ALBA is a current, interesting phenomenon, with the early EU logical, and a special will of emancipation against the dollar... Without being candid about the political aspects, there is something interesting in this emerging South America, contained for long...
   But also, even more, the Chinese development with a "win-win" logic, in some former Western influence areas.

  As promising as these models may seem, or risky, formidable, at least interesting... this state of fact could remind the same global "finance disorders + rise of outsiders" dynamic that prevailed before the First World War. With a backdrop of possible energy disputes and new, mostly unknown arms, this could carry the seeds of a global conflagration.

  Every historical dispute, "pensée unique" or simply "dominant at a given time”, were settled by the debate (diplomacy), or by force (Roma and Carthage)... The issue here is not saying that "it is urgent" to look for solutions, because it is just an answer : time is already accelerating...

  Good criticism is that at the end of which we know what to do. So, is there any ***Solution/Road Map***?

  ***A huge international reform would be desirable, both on financial (and monetary) "great game" and on the terms of trade. ***It deals at least about the development models issue (which should be disconnected from any ideology ...), orienting credits to productive investment, a new Glass-Steagall act... : The "false debate" between protectionism and free trade must be transcended. It is not being "in favour" or "against", but the logic of banishment against the state (economic circuits) has its limits, as well as an excessive interventionism...

  The issue actually deals with a more ***pragmatic approach of any "General Interest"***, in so far as the role of a political system is certainly more to ensure the long-term and low-cost credit, to supervise and monitor some real development projects, more than refloating some "casino" businesses, or endless debating on liberalization of financial services biased by the disparity of tax rules among the member-state.

  Today the EU operates according to its rules, and nobody can criticize its actors to make the best use of them, nor than we can sentence a lawyer to use the law in his favor, any company to relocate its activities if it is permitted. Everyone fights for his interests, and ultimately, to survive in competitive environment.

  ********************************************

  Nevertheless, as a Conclusion, it is not meaningless to ask this so-called European "pensée unique" , and not unreasonable to wish that the EU might one day have to pursue its own interests, on the long run (his own development as it was the first, historical goal), closely linked with a particular vision of the world (to inspire other regions to do likewise).

  Without such a "long run" idea, World Harmony will not and never be possible. THE question is fundamental : choosing to raise internal standards before joining a globalization "from above", or resigning themselves to a process of widespread poverty, overpopulation argued to explain the fundamental ineptness of a system that proved its limit, and at the very end, this constituting a major risk for our world... If the developed member states of the EU choose to lead by example and improve the world, it is unlikely that less developed countries would do so.

  "Those who forget the past are condemned to live it again" (G. Santayana). Terrorism also rises from despair, and war from "blocked" situations with no solutions...

  A true, consented, "Globalism" could be achieved through trade and mutual interests. But on an equitable basis (not limited to "fair trade") ... Any other solution would be potentially risky, or even more.

  EU will have a great responsibility, in the next thirty (ten?) years, in acting, but also if the EU doesn’t dare to act as a common will... Today it could seem like being a wishful thinking. Tomorrow, we’ll see... Maybe too late, maybe not?

  Long message, but hard to get the very substance in 10 lines. Hope this could perhaps bring a little stone to the debate... I am of course opened to any criticism, as the Truth is always many-sided...

  Best regards.

  Reply to this message