The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
and
Sounds very Obamaish. We'll see.
Do you remember 2008 and all the possible dream scenarios played out in the heads of many progressives? Curbing the national security state, strong economic stimulus while taking apart the zombie banks, and all the other wishful projections?
Now it's the year of the next US election and what do we have? a country that is seeing the entrenchment of a hitherto unknown sedimentary bedding of unemployment. A right-wing that has somehow turned a political jiu jitsu by promising more of the same. A slowly declining empire.
Hollande will muddle through like the rest of them which doesn't have to be a bad thing. But the hope of him raising the 'Coalition To Turn Around the European Story' will be disappointed. The best I can hope for is for him to push through (somehow) his domestic policies. Will he and his PM prove to be politically adept enough to do that? Hmm. "I'm not dangerous." he said to the London financiers. Well if you wanna turn the ship around you have to be dangerous. Lyndon Johnson was probably one of the last to get that.
As for Lyndon Johnson, he sacrificed the Great Society to buy support from the war industry and created a tragedy.
Want to develop the analysis a little?
- Jake Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.
My contention is that the economic fruits of colonial looting can survive for quite some time on the inertia of economic structure and government - but that time is running out.
What I am saying is that I'm not clear on how Europe needs any of that, to such an extent that it going away would create a serious crisis.
The world changes. Sometimes it changes in your favour, sometimes it changes in someone else's favour. To say that "Europe's problem" is that the world is changing in someone else's favour is to give "Europe's problem" an air of inevitability that it does not necessarily deserve.
That is, is the problem that Europe fundamentally cannot deal with this reality and remain a comfortable place to live, or is it merely that Europe is currently politically unwilling to deal with reality? And in the latter case, is Europe's problem really that the world is changing? It would seem to me that in that case Europe's problem is that it has an obsolete political structure.
This is a crucial point, because it is the difference between operational and political constraints - that is, between having to change the world vs. only having to change your mind. For all the difficulty in effecting political change, it is a great deal easier than changing the laws of nature.
Shell, BP and Total are profitable companies, but they no longer impose leonine contracts on the former colonies, they operate at market prices, more or less. Strip mining of the seas is open to anyone with a factory ship; the biggest hit is possibly in the armaments industry, but I guess we'll just have to bite that bullet. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
It's not clear to me that the vestiges of colonial privilege are of any great advantage. (One indication is that Germany has no such economic heritage.)
Flippant counters aside, Germany has been benefiting from first the British and then the American imperial order, because they were inside it but big and strong enough (and had enough white people) that they were not reduced to a colony.
The social arrangements of modern Europe commenced from a distribution of property which was the result, not of just partition, or acquisition by industry, but of conquest and violence: and notwithstanding what industry has been doing for many centuries to modify the work of force, the system still retains many and large traces of its origin. The laws of property have never yet conformed to the principles on which the justification of private property rests. They have made property of things which never ought to be property, and absolute property where only a qualified property ought to exist. They have not held the balance fairly between human beings, but have heaped impediments upon some, to give advantage to others; they have purposely fostered inequalities, and prevented all from starting fair in the race.
That quote is from the same paragraph that contains "the principle of private property has never had a fair trial in any country". guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Here's an online source
http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlP14.html
Private property, in every defence made of it, is supposed to mean, the guarantee to individuals of the fruits of their own labour and abstinence.
Indeed.
But I don' see much recognition of the level of change that would be needed to compensate for all that going away.
or indeed the recognition of the effects of all the cheap immigrant labour taking these right wing goons seriously and all going home...
to my semi-educated view, it seems factual that many of the great concentrations of wealth in europe, be it in the royal houses, banking giants like rotschilds, uber-industrialists like the krupps etc were all aided enormously by the conquest and occupation of the third world, be it for resources, and then captive markets, (the english/indian cotton, for example).
the influx of gold from the iberian colonies in central.south america may have had disequilibrating, inflationary effects on european economies, but the wealth was arriving, and fortunes were made, then invested wisely on the hubbert upswing to create the fiction that 20% returns were the norm for cautious investors. if fiction perseveres long enough it becomes as near to fact as makes no difference.
it becomes an axiom, and only those with long term historical memories can see the pattern of past bubble/busts, and thus through the illusion.
capitalism did spread a lot of wealth downwards to a burgeoning, and increasingly well-educated middle class, forming a new elite of the cunning, rather than the blue-blooded. this is the base for randian celebrations of the driving force behind the growth of the last two centuries of industrial economies.
but now the elite has formed itself above the clouds of toil and care again, and once again is believing in its own myth of divine selection and rights. onceagain it is stealing not just from the poor, (the middle class is totally cool with that), but from the middle class itself. blind greed has taken over...
the poor have few tools to organise and affect macro events, but it's a different story with and educated, disaffected middle class who have put up with a lot of feeling inferior to their 'masters' anyway, and now feel betrayed by the unwritten pact between the two rich classes, that they would do the upper class 1% shitwork, (the kind that you do from a desk, an HQ, a parliament, civil service position), in return for being able to look down on the dalits who really do the shitwork of going down mines, working sweatshops, infantrypersons in wars with no honour and the like.
europe was a metaphorical middle class between the fabled riches of the american empire in flush, and the wretched hordes of foxconn asia, and now as the orient's wealth waxes, and america's wanes, we still want that gig, understandably.
the only possible hope for us to deserve, let alone retain that semi-privileged position would be to power up the alternative energy tech, (in which we are already world leaders, and ramp that sucker all the way up, a thousand or more times what it is now, while we still can).
it's a faint, but hitherto undying hope, indeed it is a very thin thread to find our way out of a very dark labyrinth. of course there will be much buggy whip collateral damage, but whichever course is taken that'll be the case, the faster we come to grips with this reality the brighter our future will be.
the alternative might be the horse and cart for us, in which case the buggy whip makers will thrive likely as well as bureaucrats and bankers... The power of knowledge is in mortal combat with the knowledge of power. It really is that simple... That's the Edenic apple we are all munching on.
I would place the break to real decline at de-colonisation (with a half-century long plateau phase before that). Yes, the former colonial powers still put up fights, and the US took over much of the structures, but the world is clearly (but slowly) changing.
I would however argue that the US faces the same problem and probably more so. Europe is being free-riders (like the neocons complained about). But being free-riders on the colonial system appears from the historical experience of Europe not to be a bad deal (Germany being a prime example).
I would also argue that the de-colonization era showed that the west no longer holds the kind of military and technological edge that allowed the establishment of the colonial system in the first place. And despite neocon fantasies, modern weapons has not changed that, as Iraq and Afghanistan has showed. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
The 20th Century was a spectacularly violent century - declaring victory seems a trifle premature.
What I think is correct is that we have both pre-packaged meat that one can eat without thinking of slaughterhouses and pre-packaged poor people extracted wealth that one can consume without thinking about secret police and mass shootings.
And the 60million or so who perished in WWII are not diminished by noting a larger world population at the time.
In that sense, the 30 years' war ushered in the "Westphalian" system of international relations and is far more important in its systemic implications than even WWII since the international system that emerged form WWI (UN bodies, Bretton Woods, NATO) was never considered as superseding the Westphalian system but only in the last decade or so people have started talking about post-Westphalia. This means the 30 years' war is a watershed event on a scale of 350 to 400 years, which WWII was not. As fas as traumatizing Central Europe, it was on a par with WWII as well, with a much higher per-capita mortality rate and lasting 5 times longer. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
In any case, even if aggregate violence were decreasing, the evidence of EU humanism and scruples is hard to find.
Yes, nowadays genocide is not popular but the colonial empires were not lost in the 21st century.
For an example of present guilt and post-war brutality
For there is something peculiarly chilling about the way colonial officials behaved, most notoriously but not only in Kenya, within a decade of the liberation of the concentration camps and the return of thousands of emaciated British prisoners of war from the Pacific. One courageous judge in Nairobi explicitly drew the parallel: Kenya's Belsen, he called one camp.The uprising by a secret sect, the Mau Mau - impoverished Kikuyu demanding the return of their fertile lands - led to the deaths of maybe 20,000 men and women, many after torture and internment. Thousands more died in the violence that tore apart Kikuyu families on opposing sides of the dispute.With the tacit consent of ministers at Westminster, a British administration in colonial Kenya chose to behave as if Africans had no human rights. Rattled by a handful of murderous attacks on planters, they tried to face down the rebels using the empire's default setting of brutality. Castration, sodomy, rape and beatings were everyday weapons in its unremitting defence of the rights of the white settlers.
For there is something peculiarly chilling about the way colonial officials behaved, most notoriously but not only in Kenya, within a decade of the liberation of the concentration camps and the return of thousands of emaciated British prisoners of war from the Pacific. One courageous judge in Nairobi explicitly drew the parallel: Kenya's Belsen, he called one camp.
The uprising by a secret sect, the Mau Mau - impoverished Kikuyu demanding the return of their fertile lands - led to the deaths of maybe 20,000 men and women, many after torture and internment. Thousands more died in the violence that tore apart Kikuyu families on opposing sides of the dispute.
With the tacit consent of ministers at Westminster, a British administration in colonial Kenya chose to behave as if Africans had no human rights. Rattled by a handful of murderous attacks on planters, they tried to face down the rebels using the empire's default setting of brutality. Castration, sodomy, rape and beatings were everyday weapons in its unremitting defence of the rights of the white settlers.
Can you point me to a post-war conflict in any of the colonial empires where the empire folded because they did not like to be assholes anymore? A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Can you point me to a post-war conflict in any of the colonial empires where the empire folded because they did not like to be assholes anymore?
Let me see: Madagascar, no, Indochina, no, Algeria, no.
Now we can ask ourselves why De Gaulle's Fifth Republic, established in 1958, decide to organize referendum in pretty much all the remaining colonies which led to independence in the early 1960s: apparently the French leadership had lost appetite for retaining (most of) what was left of the Empire but whether this was because they didn't like to be A-holes anymore is unclear to me. Europeans think a hundred miles is a long way. Americans think a hundred years is a long time.
All those three conflicts you mention are conflicts where the French didn't do everything they could to win: not because they couldn't, but because they didn't have the political will to be brutal enough. Which is, of course, a good thing. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Anyway, that gives us a metric. So conscripts was not used in Indochina after wwII. Were they used before wwII? Otherwise wwII did not change anything in that respect. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
I'll add that Gandhi (educated in London) saw one of his objectives as making India unprofitable for Britain to keep, that is part of why he pursued such goals as circumventing the salt tax and producing cloth in India. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
You get a colony like Canada, Australia or the US, empty of problematic people but full of resources. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
The interest being served is that of the private actors who get to set up shop in the colonies. The national interest is served only incidentally, if at all. And it is not in their interest to have to rely on scarce domestic manpower for exploiting untapped resources.
That's why I say Europeans have not come to terms with the machinery of their own prosperity.
Amazing.
The wealth of Europe has, for the far greatest fraction, been a result of the hard toil of European workers, inventors and entrepenurs, with a liberal helping of cheap fossil fuels. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
If we want a colonial dimension to our economic history, it must be one which can explain why non-colonial nations got as rich as the colonial ones. Access to markets and resources explain this, pillaging does not.
Yes, access provided by the colonial powers to the freeriders. To colonise is great, to freeride is greater. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
This is more or less the accepted narrative of why the Netherlands got rich of the Spanish pillage in America. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Much better to buy local despots and let the natives police themselves while giving our companies access to their markets and resources.
That is how most colonies started.
Then resentment grows among local elites and the cousin of the despot discovers that he is the rightful heir to the throne. The rebellion kills company officials and others who looks like them, like missionaries. Great many stories in where the heroes have to save the missionaries before the brutal natives killss them, great propaganda.
So the marines has to be sent in to restore the order. Rinse and repeat.
After a while it appears to make more sense to post troops there indefinetely, and since the local despot is so incompetent at staying in power anyway, add a vice-king. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
by Migeru - Jun 15 39 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 17 20 comments
by Katrin - Jun 12 88 comments
by Jerome a Paris - Jun 9 68 comments
by DoDo - Jun 9 22 comments
by Zwackus - Jun 11 64 comments
by Metatone - Jun 8 4 comments
by Ted Welch - Jun 3 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 1720 comments
by Migeru - Jun 1539 comments
by Katrin - Jun 1288 comments
by DoDo - Jun 1126 comments
by Zwackus - Jun 1164 comments
by Jerome a Paris - Jun 968 comments
by DoDo - Jun 922 comments
by Metatone - Jun 84 comments
by DoDo - Jun 671 comments
by DoDo - Jun 418 comments
by Ted Welch - Jun 31 comment
by gmoke - Jun 211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 3113 comments
by A swedish kind of death - May 3113 comments
by ceebs - May 2927 comments
by ARGeezer - May 2915 comments
by Zwackus - May 271 comment
by DoDo - May 2631 comments
by DoDo - May 2346 comments
by Metatone - May 1490 comments