MaxedOutMama
Sunday, May 08, 2005
The Human Navel: An Intellectual Ghetto
There is one excellent, important point in Michael Bernstein's NY Times article "Bored No More: History's End Scares Europe", but from there it collapses into a weird post-modern navel-gazing exercise that is oddly Dowd-like. Bernstein's discussion of Chirac's recent televised town-hall type meeting with young French citizens for the purpose of trying to convince the French to ratify the new EU Constitution describes the issue precisely:
Now, in the long term, economies or businesses which try to isolate themselves from competition flounder, and economies or businesses which embrace competition thrive. So why the controversy? Well, because EU politicians are not willing to engage these populations in an honest discussion about the realistic need to create competitive markets to stimulate growth. Obviously the skeptical French electorate isn't stupid, because they see through the claim that the EU's true aim is to foster protectionism. What they are not hearing is realistic discussions of the future. I have been reading the EU Observer in growing amazement - the EU crowd does not seem willing to engage in any sort of honest dialogue with the French population.
And note too, Chirac's talk of Europe imposing "its humanism, its values". Does this sound democratic to you? And on whom do they seek to impose these values? With what tools and by what strategy? In France, it is against the Muslim immigrants.
What lies at the heart of all this is a contempt for the average European and the average immigrant, and it does not bode well. When Euro-politicos talk about Anglo-Saxon and Atlanticist Europe, they are railing against the influence of the US and the UK, and in this context capitalism. So Chirac is trying to convince his electorate to vote for the EU Constitution under the guise that their socialist way of life will be preserved, when the truth is it will not. Nothing that the EU or the US can do will change the global economic realities. Socialism is a dead duck; dead of starvation because it can't compete.
I would recommend reading the rest of the article for its obfuscations of the driving issue:
Apparently experiencing some sort of need to avoid the issues by means of a Chiracian intellectual bombasticism, Bernstein keeps writing:
I don't think that Bernstein is stupid, or that he really doesn't comprehend what is happening in Europe. I suspect it is simply wholly unacceptable in his intellectual and social circle to state the truth - that the socialist compromise of western Europe is expiring under the twin weights of its own demographic suicide and its inability to compete economically. It is not that there aren't small enclaves in the extreme north of Europe whose social cohesion hasn't made their intellectual products competitive. Yet no society can experience such low birthrates and sustain itself; the combination of a declining working population, an increasing idle population and expensive social programs make such a society uncompetitive on the world market.
I believe that the EU elite thinks it can federalize itself and impose protectionist barriers against the outside while imposing cultural and religious uniformity within. It could, if it could convince its population to start swimming upriver and spawning once more, thus generating growth from within. This seems profoundly unlikely, and would require a cultural revolution which would itself change the face of European culture. Otherwise, the result of such an attempt tp create a fortress Europe will be neither attractive nor vibrant. Think Cuba.
The response of the young people was strong and persistent skepticism, and, perhaps more important, pessimism. "I have the impression," one of them said, "that a little something is being hidden in this text, and that is that the text follows a liberal logic." By "liberal" the young person did not mean American-style liberalism, à la Edward M. Kennedy. He meant liberal in the European sense of an unregulated free-market economy of cheap labor competition that will cause Europe to jettison its social protections. The implication was that "liberalism" is what the bureaucrats in Brussels, the European Union's capital, want, and what the citizens of the individual nations like France must protect themselves against.Earlier Chirac was quoted claiming that the European Constitution was necessary to avoid this type of "liberalism", i.e. open markets:
One "would lead to a Europe swept along by an ultraliberal current, which would be an Anglo-Saxon and Atlanticist Europe," he said. "That's not what we would wish." What Europe needs instead, he said, is "to be organized and strong so as to impose its humanism, its values."The point is that the French citizens know this is a lie. And it is an obvious lie. The European elite prepared a services directive that would have fostered cross-country competition. The opposition to the proposal in Germany and France is intense, because the workers know they must be the short-term losers under the directive. The other important element here is Chirac's claim that Europe must be "organized and strong so as to impose its humanism, its values."
Now, in the long term, economies or businesses which try to isolate themselves from competition flounder, and economies or businesses which embrace competition thrive. So why the controversy? Well, because EU politicians are not willing to engage these populations in an honest discussion about the realistic need to create competitive markets to stimulate growth. Obviously the skeptical French electorate isn't stupid, because they see through the claim that the EU's true aim is to foster protectionism. What they are not hearing is realistic discussions of the future. I have been reading the EU Observer in growing amazement - the EU crowd does not seem willing to engage in any sort of honest dialogue with the French population.
And note too, Chirac's talk of Europe imposing "its humanism, its values". Does this sound democratic to you? And on whom do they seek to impose these values? With what tools and by what strategy? In France, it is against the Muslim immigrants.
What lies at the heart of all this is a contempt for the average European and the average immigrant, and it does not bode well. When Euro-politicos talk about Anglo-Saxon and Atlanticist Europe, they are railing against the influence of the US and the UK, and in this context capitalism. So Chirac is trying to convince his electorate to vote for the EU Constitution under the guise that their socialist way of life will be preserved, when the truth is it will not. Nothing that the EU or the US can do will change the global economic realities. Socialism is a dead duck; dead of starvation because it can't compete.
I would recommend reading the rest of the article for its obfuscations of the driving issue:
Perhaps an explanation for the current European spiritual condition was provided in that famous 1992 essay by Francis Fukuyama, who argued that history has ended. His idea was that the last great ideological struggle ended with the fall of Soviet Communism and the triumph of the liberal democratic idea, and that there could be no more advanced idea.Post-historical? Try not to hurt yourself laughing. The great sweep of history is accelerating over western Europe as it clings to the wreckage of its socialist lifeboats, and it is this that is causing the doubt in France and Germany. No population is happy with persistent unemployment rates of over 10%, little or no economic growth, an aging population and unsustainable social benefit programs.
That is a cause for rejoicing. But as Mr. Fukuyama wrote, there was also something dispiriting about a post-historical world in which the Big Question no longer revolves around freedom but over how much New Zealand butter a nation could import.
Apparently experiencing some sort of need to avoid the issues by means of a Chiracian intellectual bombasticism, Bernstein keeps writing:
"The dearth of ideas is the really true part of Fukuyama," Pierre Hassner, a French political philosopher, said recently. "In this sense, history really is finished."Note the idiotic nature of Hassner's statement. The profoundly ideological combat of secularist/humanist/socialist culture vs secularist/humanist/capitalist culture vs Judeo-Christian/humanist/capitalist culture vs Islamic/progressive culture (embattled but hopeful) vs Islamic/totalitarian culture are raging across half the globe. (Yes, Africa, all of Africa, is fighting this war.) And should those conflicts subside, the Asia east stands like a flaming question mark guarding the gates of Fukuyama's paradise. The only dearth of ideas that can be detected anywhere is found among European socialists.
I don't think that Bernstein is stupid, or that he really doesn't comprehend what is happening in Europe. I suspect it is simply wholly unacceptable in his intellectual and social circle to state the truth - that the socialist compromise of western Europe is expiring under the twin weights of its own demographic suicide and its inability to compete economically. It is not that there aren't small enclaves in the extreme north of Europe whose social cohesion hasn't made their intellectual products competitive. Yet no society can experience such low birthrates and sustain itself; the combination of a declining working population, an increasing idle population and expensive social programs make such a society uncompetitive on the world market.
I believe that the EU elite thinks it can federalize itself and impose protectionist barriers against the outside while imposing cultural and religious uniformity within. It could, if it could convince its population to start swimming upriver and spawning once more, thus generating growth from within. This seems profoundly unlikely, and would require a cultural revolution which would itself change the face of European culture. Otherwise, the result of such an attempt tp create a fortress Europe will be neither attractive nor vibrant. Think Cuba.
Comments:
<< Home
This is an excellent post. It is ironic that the France that lectures us about 'imperialism' is perfectly open about imposing its own values where and when needed- no doubt, from a historical perspective, when and where they stand to benefit.
The color of the legacy of french colonialism is readily apparent- it is blood red. There are virtually no former french colonies that have not been ravaged by violence. So much for French integrity in imposing it's values.
The color of the legacy of french colonialism is readily apparent- it is blood red. There are virtually no former french colonies that have not been ravaged by violence. So much for French integrity in imposing it's values.
Or perhaps the idea of the "imposition". Have you read Kramer's article in the New Yorker? As much as she approves of the French attempt to impose their values, even she admitted that those being imposed upon were very anxious to get to the US.
Our walling off of conscience and religion from interference by the state provides a space in which immigrants can freely maintain their own values while sharing opportunity. That is what is not occurring in France.
Our walling off of conscience and religion from interference by the state provides a space in which immigrants can freely maintain their own values while sharing opportunity. That is what is not occurring in France.
“Perhaps an explanation for the current European spiritual condition was provided in that famous 1992 essay by Francis, who argued that history has ended. His idea was that the last great ideological struggle ended with the fall of Soviet Communism and the triumph of the liberal democratic idea, and that there could be no more advanced idea.”
I want to compliment you on you incisive post concerning Bernstein’s article. However, I’d like to point out that the idea that history has ended al la Mr. Fukuyama is not only not accurate it is ludicrous. Mr. F is obviously not a scholar of Marxism. The former Soviet Union was not based on Communist/Marxist ideology Rather it was a conglomeration of slave states, taken by force by the most ruthless dictator in history, and the ideology, if anything, was more fascist than Hitler’s Germany.
Keep in mind that Marx argued against single state communism for the simple reason that such a state would fail in the face of pervasive, not to say ubiquitous capitalist pressure, which is precisely what happened. This is why only the threat of death or the gulag kept this bastardized version of fascism in tact for so many years. In short, there was no fundamental ideological principle that kept the Soviet Union in tact except brute force—the Soviet Union collapsed because it finally ran out of energy—it takes a lot of energy to enslave millions upon millions of people. Alas, I am afraid that great ideological struggles will be with us for quite awhile and history has not quite been consigned to the trash heap.
I want to compliment you on you incisive post concerning Bernstein’s article. However, I’d like to point out that the idea that history has ended al la Mr. Fukuyama is not only not accurate it is ludicrous. Mr. F is obviously not a scholar of Marxism. The former Soviet Union was not based on Communist/Marxist ideology Rather it was a conglomeration of slave states, taken by force by the most ruthless dictator in history, and the ideology, if anything, was more fascist than Hitler’s Germany.
Keep in mind that Marx argued against single state communism for the simple reason that such a state would fail in the face of pervasive, not to say ubiquitous capitalist pressure, which is precisely what happened. This is why only the threat of death or the gulag kept this bastardized version of fascism in tact for so many years. In short, there was no fundamental ideological principle that kept the Soviet Union in tact except brute force—the Soviet Union collapsed because it finally ran out of energy—it takes a lot of energy to enslave millions upon millions of people. Alas, I am afraid that great ideological struggles will be with us for quite awhile and history has not quite been consigned to the trash heap.
# posted by 
: 5:40 AM
: 5:40 AM
“Perhaps an explanation for the current European spiritual condition was provided in that famous 1992 essay by Francis, who argued that history has ended. His idea was that the last great ideological struggle ended with the fall of Soviet Communism and the triumph of the liberal democratic idea, and that there could be no more advanced idea.”
I want to compliment you on you incisive post concerning Bernstein’s article. However, I’d like to point out that the idea that history has ended al la Mr. Fukuyama is not only not accurate it is ludicrous. Mr. F is obviously not a scholar of Marxism. The former Soviet Union was not based on Communist/Marxist ideology Rather it was a conglomeration of slave states, taken by force by the most ruthless dictator in history, and the ideology, if anything, was more fascist than Hitler’s Germany.
Keep in mind that Marx argued against single state communism for the simple reason that such a state would fail in the face of pervasive, not to say ubiquitous capitalist pressure, which is precisely what happened. This is why only the threat of death or the gulag kept this bastardized version of fascism in tact for so many years. In short, there was no fundamental ideological principle that kept the Soviet Union in tact except brute force—the Soviet Union collapsed because it finally ran out of energy—it takes a lot of energy to enslave millions upon millions of people. Alas, I am afraid that great ideological struggles will be with us for quite awhile and history has not quite been consigned to the trash heap.
I want to compliment you on you incisive post concerning Bernstein’s article. However, I’d like to point out that the idea that history has ended al la Mr. Fukuyama is not only not accurate it is ludicrous. Mr. F is obviously not a scholar of Marxism. The former Soviet Union was not based on Communist/Marxist ideology Rather it was a conglomeration of slave states, taken by force by the most ruthless dictator in history, and the ideology, if anything, was more fascist than Hitler’s Germany.
Keep in mind that Marx argued against single state communism for the simple reason that such a state would fail in the face of pervasive, not to say ubiquitous capitalist pressure, which is precisely what happened. This is why only the threat of death or the gulag kept this bastardized version of fascism in tact for so many years. In short, there was no fundamental ideological principle that kept the Soviet Union in tact except brute force—the Soviet Union collapsed because it finally ran out of energy—it takes a lot of energy to enslave millions upon millions of people. Alas, I am afraid that great ideological struggles will be with us for quite awhile and history has not quite been consigned to the trash heap.
# posted by : 5:45 AM
: 5:45 AM
Ulysses, you are making a real point. Fukayama's theory has so many holes that to attempt to combat it is like shooting at a cloud.
Whether the preconditions that Marx identified will ever be found is another question, and only another 100 years of history will probably answer that question.
When I look at the differences in the supposedly Communist states of the USSR and China I wonder if Marx himself did not err in believing that economics was the driving force of history. I tend to suspect that, at least for now, culture is.
There is no pure capitalist, socialist, communist or theocratic state in the world today. But one thing is certain - the "withering away of the state" is not happening.
Post a Comment
Whether the preconditions that Marx identified will ever be found is another question, and only another 100 years of history will probably answer that question.
When I look at the differences in the supposedly Communist states of the USSR and China I wonder if Marx himself did not err in believing that economics was the driving force of history. I tend to suspect that, at least for now, culture is.
There is no pure capitalist, socialist, communist or theocratic state in the world today. But one thing is certain - the "withering away of the state" is not happening.
<< Home
