Revisiting the Sixties with Sarko

This amusing advertisement from the French division of Volkswagen could not be better timed. Trotskyite and other far left students have shut down about a third of France's universities this week, many of them dreaming of overturning the "Facho-Sarko" regime. (today's story). 

VW is celebrating the 60th anniversary of the trusty old Combi van just as President Sarkozy is trying to face down hardline strikers and their student sympathisers.      

The caption says: It has belonged to a Trotskyite, a Maoist, a Socialist and a Sarkozist without ever changing owner.

Volkswagen tell us that the advert has only been placed in le Figaro, the newspaper of the Sarkozy-voting middle and upper classes.  Though the WV Microbus of the flower power hippy years was really a US phenomenon, the advert is a wink at France's 1968 generation. Many of those students who worshipped Leon Trotsky and Chairman Mao matured into Socialists in their 30s. They moved fruther right over the years and voted for Nicolas Sarkozy last spring.

Philippe Jourdain, marketing boss for Volkswagen commercial vehicles, says that the advert is gentle humour. "The Combi van has passed through the generations since the post war period, through the Woodstock festival up to the present day. It's a travelling companion that has also traversed different political opinons.  The message is, 'One changes in life. People's beliefs evolve, but the Combi van is always appreciated'."

It's worth noting that Sarko himself was an exception to the VW idea. He was always a right-winger, even as a 13-year-old school pupil in Neuilly in May 1968.  When his class-mates were out  supporting the students, he tried to take part in the anti-strike marches organised by Gaullists who were sick of the anarchy.  His mother asked the school principle to stop le petit Nicolas from leaving the classroom to march down the Champs Elysées.    

    

Comments

[Frank Schnittger]

Ah yes, whatever happened to free love? When wearing jeans meant you were part of something and you could hitch a safe ride from any bunch of students but risked a beating from men in suits if you had long hair. Listening to Neil Young in a Lexington loft having been offered a place to stay. When you could tell where people were coming from by the music they "digged". When the counterculture had a constructive focus - civil rights, Vietnam, anti-racism, relationships based on community rather than commerce. When alternative America led the world ...those were the days. I must be getting old.

[The 3rd Column]

Charles,

Excellent advert! As you say couldn't come at a better time.

Also just read the story link on student leader Julie Coudry. At 28 and still a student in Sorbonne? Don't get me wrong, nothing against going back to school late in life but just wondering if Ms Coudry has become a "professional student", something prevalent in unis today.

Many young people are still 1st or 2nd year students 3 or 4 years in a row and never seem to finish their studies. I believe something to do with student privileges that go with staying in uni 'ad vitam eternam.' And if they become top dogs of their respective BDE (Bureau des Elèves), they can stay in uni for as long as they want, receive a neat stipend from paying BDE subscribers/members/student gala events sponsors, etc, and lead the life of an eternal student in relative comfort.

Re Rennes: I find it gobsmacking that "... Rennes protesters refused to accept a majority student vote to call off the blockade of the university."

I won't be surprised to hear that many of these students at Rennes dictating to those who want to call of the blockade are only so-called students but who in fact have become professional left-wing saboteurs.

Sarkozy must stand firm. He also must not allow a bunch of student saboteurs get away with disrupting the lives of the majority of students who are aiming to have an education.

[Terry]

"Many of those students who worshipped Leon Trotsky and Chairman Mao matured into Socialists in their 30s. They moved fruther right over the years and voted for Nicolas Sarkozy last spring."

Actually, they matured when they voted for Sarko. Nothing like a career and paying taxes to get thru the noggins of at least some soft headed lefties.

Maybe the spoiled brats in the universities won't wait another 15-20 years to see the light.

[Sigognac]

It would seem the journalists of the venerable Times are on strike too.
Universities are not "shut down", some sections are distrupted, not quite the same thing.
In fact, the only real bit of news this week is that students do react against these blockades.

As for Troskyites, it is a well known fact that the UNEF is dominated by the LCR (Ligue communiste révolutionnaire), that politics matters more to them than studies, and that you have loads of "students" who dream about world revolution.

What is really worryning though are all those students saying they go on strike to have a cushy pension... Zzzzzzzzz

[Terry]

"Listening to Neil Young in a Lexington loft having been offered a place to stay. When you could tell where people were coming from by the music they "digged". When the counterculture had a constructive focus - civil rights, Vietnam, anti-racism, relationships based on community rather than commerce. When alternative America led the world ...those were the days. I must be getting old."

Yes, those were the days. The days when spoiled college kids living off their parents new found wealth could sneer at the rest of the world. "Everything should be free!". What was the slogan again "Turn on, Tune In and Drop Out". A wonderful message for young adults. Free sex, drugs, public nudity, riots and, of course, Marxism, were some of their more notable legacies. Of course, none of them realized what created the wealth that provided them their luxuries of time and privelige. (see capitalism). And they used those days of comfort to criticize the very mechanisms that provided that comfort. We have watched many of the driving forces of that phony revolution such as Abbie Hoffman (a alumnist of my school, Brandeis Univ.) commit suicide or slow kill themselves with drug abuse. The period was a negation of life, meaning you have to work to earn your daily bread. The ones who couldnt tolerate this fact of existence (that we call reality) the most certainly decided as Neil Young said, to burn out rather than fade away. Actually, most did both. Ginsberg, Kerouac, Abby, Jim Morrison, Joplin. I don't know too much of the French version, but I imagine the only difference might have been cheese.

However, these spoiled brats were thankfully only a small segment of the younger population. The overwhelming majority were patriotic, studied and lived responsible lives. Many like my father worked through high school and college and didnt have the time or inclination to dance around in the mud zooted on mushrooms at Woodstock. The noisy ones got all the attention.

When some of them grew up and actually had to work for a living, their lofty notions soon got a good dose of reality. The others became Democratic nominees for the U.S. Presidency.

[Daniel Strohl]

"They moved further right over the years"

Some of them at a slower and more calculated pace. The most emblematic of the student leaders of 1968 in Paris, Daniel Cohn-Bendit (nicknamed Dany le Rouge - Dany the Red), who had been "volunteered" to emigrate to Germany after the 1968 events, has meanwhile turned "green" as a member of the European parliament.

This label colour looks much more fashionable in Germany, where to be classified as "ein Roter" is no good if one is ambitious. Dany the Red, even if now turned green, may not be presented as a paragon of intellectual modesty ...

[Little Big Horn]

Here rests in peace Conservatives's youth: an ad for a glossy community van. How laughable..

Truly happy to see that the rightists are still able of a bit of self-derision.

The next "peace and love" step will be?.. "Coffin and crowns"?.. How fortunate are those who already own a Wolkswagen hearse!

[Dom Macdonald]

I love the Sempé reference in the last paragraph!

[Frank Schnittger]

Terry - if you must know - I had three jobs that summer - two simultaneously - making beds in Hotels and selling Ice cream and hotdogs in a Howard Jounson's takeout window on the Wildwood, New Jersey Boardwalk, and construction work in Virginia Beach. Phew it was hot! I also worked my way through college.

I would agree on one thing though. The anti-war movement would never have gained such traction if middle class and better off kids hadn't been subjected to the draft. War is apparently not much of a political issue if only the poor kids get killed.

Most of the most vociferous war mongers on the Republican right have never served on the front line. They're too busy making money on the back of wars that the poorer kids end up fighting in on the front line.

You're far more of a Marxist than I am - you're still fighting the class war - on behalf the propertied classes. Most Europeans have decided that class war is not they way forward - for any class. You are the mirror image of the French strikers/blockaders and people like you make it easy for them to maintain their largely outdated caricatures of the bourgeoisie.

[Terry]

Frank:

"You're far more of a Marxist than I am - you're still fighting the class war - on behalf the propertied classes. Most Europeans have decided that class war is not they way forward - for any class."

"and people like you make it easy for them to maintain their largely outdated caricatures of the bourgeoisie."

I am still fighting the class war?Was it not you who wrote on the previous blog about "curbing" the rich and privileged? Isnt you who is always complaining that the United States is "cruel" because the wealthy don't pay for the poor's healthcare? Perhaps, I am being picky but that sounds a lot like class warfare to me. Is it not you who quotes that relic Marx? And I note you used the term "bourgeoisie". Another class warfare term used by Marx. Unfortunately, socialism is a virus that seems virtuously impossible to completely eradicate no matter how destructive it is in its various forms. It's proponents are forced to hide and pass off their socialist agenda under the guise of various specific programs and ideas. The only nice thing about the "sixties" was at least those students said what they were.

Europeans have not moved forward. They have decided that the government must pay for everything. They take the money from people who earn to distribute to others who dont to obtain votes. Somehow, the money actually never seems to make it into the poors' hands. That is a nice step back towards totalitarianism.

As for the Vietnam war, that was a Democratic venture not a Republican one. And if you study Johnson's War on Poverty and the Vietnam War you will find similar comparison's. Both were fought by mindlessly throwing money (substitute "troops" in vietnam) at problems with any real strategy or any real analysis of human nature. Billions of dollars were wasted. Thousands of troops were killed.

By the way, I mentioned the American boobs of the sixties, who were usually quite colorful personalities. Who were the France's loony leftist icons?

BTW. Wildwood is still a fun place. And I spent much time there growing up. Im only 38 so I wasnt down there during the Summer of Love. (i wasnt necessarily referring to you with the jobs reference.)

[Blendi Progri]

A German movie (black comedy) The Edukators (with Daniel Bruhl-the guy who plays on Goodbye Lenin) comes to mind.

The classic camper van is there, and the changes people experience through life, are expressed by the kidnapped businessman.

He tries to be friendly and sympathise the `boys` by telling them how when he was young he was the same age as them, held the same political views. The way he expresses them, the situation and surroundings where this dialogue takes place is surreal, impeccably acted.
The camper van in the movie, has a kind of extension in top when the hostage is kept for a while and a great bed for long journeys. Camper vans are handy not only for long trips, lol.
==================================.

A short summary for The Edukators.
---------------------------------
Bruhl and Stipe Erceg star as Jan and Peter, a pair of committed but essentially harmless anti-globalisation activists who break into rich people’s homes and freak them out by creatively moving all their furniture around and leaving notes that say things like, “Your days of plenty are numbered” or “You have too much money”.

Peter’s girlfriend Jule (Julia Jentsch) is an activist too, only she remains unaware of Peter and Jan’s nocturnal activities, just as Peter remains unaware of Jan and Jule’s growing attraction for each other. However, when a break-in unexpectedly results in the kidnapping of a businessman (Burghart Klaussner), the trio hole themselves up in a mountain retreat with their hostage while they figure out what to do.

[Daniel Strohl]

Frank,

"Most Europeans have decided that class war is not they way forward - for any class"

I would say MANY Europeans, or fortunately may be even MOST. But there is still a non negligible proportion of French (this blog is centered on France) who are still engaged in class war, mainly in the civil servant sector and in some "universités", where the most militant, whose parents and grand parents have been drilled for class war, continue the fights they feel to be legitimate.

It is very instructive to listen to the arguments developped by some of the "meneurs" (= leaders - the French word "meneurs" has a pejorative connotation not present in the English word) of the strikes, and "repris en choeur" ("sung in chorus" ?) by the followers. They do not need any mirror image - they are "autonomous" in that respect ... if you allow me a mechanical comparison, they are "self igniting", like a diesel engine.

Of course, there was a comparable counterpart in some layers of the "patronat" (body of employers). But the evolution has been faster there.

[Judith]

Before the election, I heard an American commentator say that Nicolas Sarkozy's politics are closer to those of the Democratic Party than the Republicans in the USA. Certainly he would make a very respectable representative of the Australian Labor Party, our party of the centre-left. Perhaps he is will succeed in moving the French voting population closer to the right (in French terms) but to the centre (in international terms).

He seems to have the support of the general population in his position on the strikes.
I would have thought that more days of peoples struggling to work in frightfully cold weather could only reduce any residual support for striking workers. I am filled with sympathy as I watch these efforts on the nightly news and hear their talk of 'misery'.

[rocket]

LBH

"Here rests in peace Conservatives's youth: an ad for a glossy community van. How laughable.."

As usual you get the message screwed up. The message is Here rests in peace socialist youth. Try rereading again but this time while standing on your head.

"The next "peace and love" step will be?.. "Coffin and crowns"?.. How fortunate are those who already own a Wolkswagen hearse!"

I must admit that the above "billet" that you wrote is a bit of literary brilliance. Especially the Wolkswagen part. Didn't you mean the Yokeswagen? Seems like the Yokes on you.

[The 3rd Column]

Don't know wherever Terry got his view that "Somehow, the money actually never seems to make it into the poors' hands. That is a nice step back towards totalitarianism." (by that he must mean in Western Europe)

Just for starters: I suggest he check health care services in Europe against US health services. That should 'learn' him.

I'm not a socialist, far from it but must tell Terry that he is wrong. In Western Europe, i.e., UK, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy, Spain, etc., that is called civilization, one that honours the Social Contract.

[Graham Palmer]

I forwarded the video from Nanterre to my nephew in Marseille. He was a student at Montpellier and is now a profesional working in Marseille. Here is his comment

"les blocages des universites sont organises par d infimes minorites d'etudiants (?) qui soutiennent des revendications plus politiques qu'universitaires.
la majorite d'entre eux sont communistes, maoistes, trotkistes, anarchistes ou simplement decidés de gagner dans la rue des elections perdues democratiquement dans les urnes.
la france sera bientot le seul et dernier pays "modernes" occidental a contenir dans son sein, des courants issus d'une epoque révolue.
c'est un spectacle affligeant que nous offrons aux yeux du monde entier.
les termes de "libre entreprise", "mondialisme", "capitalisme", "merite", "marché", "capitalisation", "valorisation du travail", "argent", "séléction" sont proscrits dans les mentalites bien-pensantes au profit d'autres telles "securité de l'emploi", "solidarité", "ancienneté", "taxation du capital", "vacanses", "droits acquis", "avantages sociaux"...etc...etc...

les francais ne sont pas encore rentrés dans le monde moderne et la france ne peut evoluer sans révolution.
c'est dans les genes.
"

Is this typical of the young French professional?

-gp

[Dominique]

Graham Palmer,

"la france sera bientot le seul et dernier pays "modernes" occidental a contenir dans son sein, des courants issus d'une epoque révolue"

I agree and would even add :

"la france sera bientot la seule et derniere démocratie occidentale puisqu'elle contient dans son sein, des courants issus d'une epoque que les autres appellent révolue"

Disagreement, social fights, strikes, right versus left, rich versus poor, social identities, public versus private : all these debates are democratic debates. Countries where those debates do not arrise, or where they have been crushed can hardly be called true democracies : poors still exist.

If you believe those problems do not exist in the socalled "modern world", i am afraid the backlash will be terrible for you one day. China is definitly not an example, nor is Dubaï or Brazil.
Your nephew should start to accept things as they are and start growing up. The world is a place where people disagree, where different interests are in opposition and where social issues are a reality.

This overall idea claiming that "social issues do not exist in the modern world" is an idea heralded by blind people only. Open your eyes.

As for the "bienpensants", well, we obviously don't hear the same. "Money uber alles" is more the today's motto nowadays in France. Thank God, some peole still have values and remind us that money is a tool for doing things, not a value for itself.

PS : this does not mean i agree with the train drivers.

[Lily]

"Countries where those debates do not arrise, or where they have been crushed can hardly be called true democracies : poors still exist." (Dominique)

Does democracy GUARANTEE freedom from poverty?

Does the social DEBATE extinguish poverty and social divide?

[christopher muir]

My memories of Combi hippies. of whom I knew many, are quite positive. Certainly their intention was to generate a peaceful environment and to eradicate violence. Actually, my first received signal about global warming came from a long-haired American I met at the Parthenon in the early 70s. He railed about pollution ruining Athen's treasures and alerted me to think about all the smoke stacks in the world. I also remember the 60s and 70s as being a prolific period in the arts. Writing, songs, graphics, photography and cinema blossomed. New book shops seemed to be springing up everywhere. "On the Road" is still worth dipping into if only for the stunning use of words. And good humour was to be found much more easily than it is in today's rat race. But the past is the past and we march on...and then there will be more names to add to the Combi's ad.

[Valentin]

"Is this typical of the young French professional?"

Graham, your nephew is right all the way.

[Juliette]

Lily: democracy doesn't guarantee freedom from poverty. However, in any country where poverty isn't mentioned, it's not because it disappeared but because the debate has been crushed by others. A country in which an important debate is crushed cannot call itsself a democracy. I believe that's what Dominique is saying.

That being said, other debates are being crushed in France right now. Like for instance, the debate on who really wants to see their university blocked.
I'm a student representative in my faculty. There are ten of us in our school. Nine of us have been elected under the title "non partisan" and the one other is from the UNEF. Therefore, the UNEF calls itsself the first student union in our school. That's how they very often work, and that's how they end up claiming to be the first student union in France. When you consider university elections have about 20% attendance too, you realise how many people truly voted for them. May I just also mention that the UNEF negociated this law? Since when do you contest a law that you negociated three months earlier?
I was in the streets two years ago for the CPE (though not on strike), and I heard Bruno Juillard speaking on TV later on, and I thought "That guy's an idiot." He's an opportunist of the worst kind, you're going to find him in a party in two years, then he'll follow the perfect path to politics.
All this to say, I usually vote for the left, I'm not a sarkozyste by any means, but I'm for this reform. So are many of my freinds, no more sarkozystes than me. This movement is politicized, it's clear. Most people on the left are not blind, and are able to see what's good for them - contrary to what many people on this blog seem to think.

[Dominique]

Lily,

"Does democracy GUARANTEE freedom from poverty?"

--> ?? of course not! what is the link with what i said? I said that poor people also have the right to complain and let others know about it!

"Does the social DEBATE extinguish poverty and social divide?"

--> Of course not entirely. But the lack of it definitly increases poverty and social divide. There is no hope of dimishing poverty and social divide if debate is not allowed...

Lot of confusion in your words

[Little Big Horn]

Rocket,

I'm afraid you didn't understand this ad. It is made for Sarkozists. It was only printed in Le Figaro, then only adressed to fallen hippies, not socialists. But is funny for leftists too, because it's a cliché that points out what has become ante-68 “daddy’s capitalism”: it has become its double, hippie. Materialism became an ideal, media a narcotic, and money baba cool.

« J'ai plein de chiffres mec.. t'en veeuuuuux...?”

Being myself a Trotskyist-Leninist -Hallowed Be Their Names-, and a bit Stalinist too since I'm French, realistic, I can tell you about a socialist version of this ad. It would be this photo:

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/MSDOS.JPG

With the caption:

"They sold their community van,
they sold their flowery youth,
they sold their peaceful soul,
they sold their loving ideal...

(-and incidentally, in 30 years, Humanity's ones-)

but... they’ve remained computing machines!

Macrohard Vista 2007:

N3rd 1s con5ervative, 6onserva7ive i5 ne2d.”

[Lily]

"Countries where those debates do not arrise, or where they have been crushed can hardly be called true democracies : poors still exist." (Dominique)

... it is THAT what caused the "confusion", Dominique. Of course, poors exist - whether you debate about their existence or not. Debating alone won't solve their problems.

I favour the debate. I don't favour it when it damages the well-being of everyone (the poor included)- e.g. through transport strikes.

Juliette,

thank you for your explanation. I agree with you.

[Terry]

3rd Column:

"I'm not a socialist, far from it but must tell Terry that he is wrong. In Western Europe, i.e., UK, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy, Spain, etc., that is called civilization, one that honours the Social Contract."

Really? There was an article in today's paper how the NHS was denied a scottish woman a hip operation because it alleged she was too fat. It turns out, the government just didnt want to pay for it. Government rationing of health care rather than corporate rationing. A distinction without a difference.

America's social contract is different, because of our history as a colony. We dont like the idea of taking money from A to give it to B. I'm not talking about paying for common things, like defense, police, education. But taking it from one group to benefit another group. There is something inherently wrong with that. The result is usually different groups warring over who gets the public largesse. Isnt that what you're seeing right now in France? Most of Europe was never truly free or as autonomous as Americans were. Most of Europe didnt have democracies until the last century. Some only for fifty years. Perhaps, that is why many many europeans still have that slave mentality.

[The 3rd Column]

Terry,

Re: "Perhaps, that is why many many europeans still have that slave mentality."

Any proof of that?

Meanwhile, I suggest you check US health care services v Western Europe's health care services, say in France, The Netherlands, Spain, Germany and even in the UK (which admittedly may have a different health care regime from rest of original EU countries but nonetheless excellent) as well as in the rest of W Europe -- not talking here of former Russian sattelite states that have just joined democratic Europe -- so you learn that somehow in these countries, money actually DOES seem to make it into the poors' hands...

As we speak more than 750,000 Americans today need emergency life saving surgery but cannot avail of health services in the US because American taxpayers' money DOESN't "make it into poors' hands." In the US, a very sick person who needs hospital services and medication dies if he doesn't have the money to sustain his medical needs.

Therefore, your statement "That is a nice step back (in Western Europe?) towards totalitarianism." is utter hogwash.

[rocket]

LBH

Being myself a Trotskyist-Leninist -Hallowed Be Their Names-, and a bit Stalinist too since I'm French.

Didn't you forget "el che" and equally Castro. Don't forget to take your palestinian kaffiyeh. It's cold out there and there's a revolution to fight.
I happen to be a "Reaganite" Hallowed be his name!

Good luck!

[rocket]

Dominique

"Your nephew should start to accept things as they are and start growing up. The world is a place where people disagree, where different interests are in opposition and where social issues are a reality."

You mean surrender to the voice of the leftists at the University. The anit-blockage should just accept it. Incredible how the Juin 40 attitude perpetuates itself in France. Right Dominique and I'm not surprised by your attitude. You certainly must agree that a minority can block the majority.

What you and your ilk are, are capitalists "ratés". You could never make any money in your life so you victimize yourselves. This is typically French leftist behaviour. I'm not "à la hauteur" so it's everyone else's fault.

So happy I live outside that envelope.

[Daniel Strohl]

Juliette,

"That guy's an idiot." Very clear statement, indeed ... It appears difficult to contradict you !

Juliette, since you are student and therefore inside the university, whereas most if not all of our fellow bloggers are outside, could you please explain us how a guy like Bruno Juillard manages to stay at the university - as far as I know, he is already 28 or 29 years old. I have difficulties to imagine that he is passing his first, second or third doctorate.

What is he really doing there and who finances his "studies" ? If it is the taxpayer, which seems likely, how is this possible ? Ca me dépasse !

PS : if Bruno is a model for many students, I understand why their unions are asking for more and more money ... They would like apparently to turn the "universités" into branches of "Club Méd". I am not sure that the taxpayers will follow ...

[Juliette]

Daniel,

Many answers... I'm not familiar with Bruno Juillard's situation, but it can happen that people stay students for a long time. If you choose to do a thesis, that's 7 years already, 7 years that often become 8 or 9, because you're bound to fail at some point, or have a weak moment etc. If you go in student groups, that's even more likely, since it is a lot of work after all - work that is usually appreciated by both students and universities. Some people also choose to multiply diplomas - that's a choice, I think the State tells you to go to hell at some point, but very late. Depending on what branch of studies you're in, you can have a side job, big unions also give you a bit of pocket money to compensate all the time you spend there.
Note that in general, I don't havea problem with student groups/unions. I have a problem with the way they're working now.

As to students being inspired by Juillard... I have yet to meet someone who appreciates him. But then, my school tends to be strangely un-politicized, or rather, we know too much about the issues at hand to really believe either side... (I study in an Institute of Political Science) Right now, all the people in my class are only thinkiing about getting out and starting to work.

[Dominique]

Rocket,

you don't know what you are talking about. Please stop fantasize about me as you have no idea about my life and ... the size of my wallet.... You are tipical of these Mister Iknoweverythingeventhoughiknownothing".

I am a capitalist "raté" !! Ouahhh!! thanks for the compliment! As long as i am a humanist "réussi", that's enough for me...

[Dominique]

Rocket,

" This is typically French leftist behaviour. I'm not "à la hauteur" so it's everyone else's fault.
"

A la hauteur de quoi? why don't you write :

"This is typically anglosaxon capitalist behaviour. I'm not "rich enough" so it's everyone else's fault (including those god damned socialist surrender monkey strikers)

Blaming others because they think differently is easy

L'enfer, c'est les autres comme on dit

[Frank Schnittger]

Apologies, Terry, Daniel et al - I've been away and the conversation has moved on. In response to your comments: Terry - I've don't recall ever quoting Marx. I haven't read him since College Sociology so I would have some difficulty recalling anything beyond a few clichéd quotes. (Along with Weber and Durkheim he is regarded as a founding fathers of Sociology).

I did write a short discursion on Althusser - also based on college sociology, but only in support of my point that he reminded me of a Jesuit theologian - as part of my argument that the socialists/civil service and the French state has taken on the mantle of the Catholic Church in their collective zeal to impose hierarchical/authoritarian rule.

Daniel - yes the "class war" is alive an well in France (more so than any other European state) - but the point I made on another blog is that it is a bogus war.

The Civil service speaks socialism but actually (in Marxist terms) have taken on the role of the bourgeoisie in taking militant action to protect their privileges against the onslaught of those in the private sector who do not share those privileges.

There is a historic role reversal - those who claim to speak on behalf of "the people" are actually the privileged civil service, and those they demonise as "capitalists" are actually people working in the market economy exposed to global competition etc. and without the privileges of guaranteed jobs, early retirement, unfunded pensions etc.

Somebody once wrote words to the effect that when history repeats itself, it generally does so as tragedy the first time around; the second time as farce. We have now reached the farcical stage in France.

Anyone who thinks the students and civil servants are fighting for workers rights is seriously deluded. They are fighting for the right to continue to exploit the workers who are working in the real economy, making real things for real people who are prepared to pay real money for those things – and who are, in France, despised for doing so – in much the same way as the British aristocracy and middle class used to look down on “tradesmen” who actually worked for a living… At leas the US never had that form of snobbery.

So you see Terry, our views are not that far removed in some respects at least!

[Dominique]

Franck Schnittiger,

"They are fighting for the right to continue to exploit the workers who are working in the real economy, making real things for real people who are prepared to pay real money for those things "

???

Hospitals? schools? transportation? police? all the people are "exploiting" the workers? what are you talking about?

All of this is "false" economy? false things? for false people? paid with false money?

This is so tipical of those who believe that private economy only is real economy and that public sector is only some kind of a burden on the "real" workers shoulders. I remind you that public services do create wealth and are part of the economy. Countries with no public services are called Afghanistan, Soudan etc... Are those your model?

"yes the "class war" is alive an well in France"

Absolutly. But not only in France. It is alive all over the world. Only blind people believe there is no rich and poor people and that every one lives in Disney land where everything is fair. Well, everything is not. Go see China, Dubaï etc...No class issue? pff Give us a break!

Trying to explain that someone paid 1200€ per month has taken the role of the bourgeoisie is clearly having no clue of what being bourgeois means. Sorry, but you are out on this one.

By the way? have you read the JDD this morning? The boss of a factory (Bergere de France) drove with his 4x4 over workers who wanted to talk to him. He probably thought that "god damned bourgeois" wanted to spoil him from his "real worker" rights.

[Monika]

Nice to see that nothing has changed in the discussions during my long absence ... :D

[Valentin]

Welcome back! Long holiday? :)

[Monika]

Unfortunately not.

I was busy with moving to another town and it took a while to get internet ...

I dunno: though internet access in G. is private it's not the fastest to get one ... :/ I mean it is just pushing some buttons to activate a line ...

but that's another topic. I fear it'll take as long as to re-enter into the topics and the discussions here. You all have been very busy, too, during my absence, I see.

[Frank Schnittger]

Dominique - hospitals, schools, transportation infrastructure, police, are services not products - part of the super structure of the state in Althuserrian terms. As such they are a cost or overhead which must be born by the productive sectors of the economy.

They are, of course, essential services and I have no difficulty with them being in the state sector provided they provide good quality and value for money - an issue, ultimately for the taxpayer to decide. The problem is that the power of the public sector unions has placed them almost beyond any sort of democratic control.

Yes, poor teachers exploit the trust of parents and students, poor doctors exploit the trust of their patients, corrupt or inefficient police exploit the trust of the citizen. Most teacher/doctors etc. may well provide a good service, but when there is no effective mechanism by which the taxpayer/consumer/citizen can ensure the quality of the service - i.e no direct or democratic accountability - then poor teachers etc. bring the entire system into disrepute tarnishing the reputation of the teaching profession as a whole.

The transport workers have gone so far as to hold the public to ransom and have thereby forfeited the trust that should always exist between the public service and the public. If the state cannot manage these services effectively and bring them back under democratic control, then the only alternative is to privatise them so that the disciplines of the marketplace will apply - i.e. transport companies which provide a poor or expensive service lose business and ultimately go bust if they do not improve their cost/service performance.

I would greatly prefer to have essential services such as schools/hospitals under state control as I do not think the profit motive is always the best way of assuring quality/cost control – particularly where a service is effectively a monopoly - but that requires the state to ensure effective and accountable management of such services.

The abuse of the right to strike and the power of the public sector unions has in many ways undermined that accountability and turned to jobs into sinecures for their holders irrespective of the quality of the service (if any) they provide.

€1200 a month is far too much if the person doing that job doesn't do it at all or uses it to obstruct productive work by others. You have to measure a job against the value it adds to society, and if for instance, a particular job is simply administering red tape which prevents greater innovation, entrepreneurship, and productivity in the economy, or if the person doing it does it so badly that it simply creates delays or costs for others then that job/job holder shouldn't exist at all.

There isn't an absolute right to a job divorced from the real needs of the economy/society and yet the public service now effectively places their interests above those of society as a whole - using sham socialist ideology to justify the whole process.

The fact that certain services are essential doesn’t mean that the current means of providing them are the only or the best way of doing so. If people want guaranteed job security then they must guarantee a high quality and efficiency of service in return – otherwise they break the social contract that should exist between a state and its people.

[Maggie G]

Hi Monika,

Happy to see you back.

[Dominique]

Franck,

I don't see what you describe here. Sounds like planet Mars to me. Irland maybe?

on planet earth/france, civil servants make a great job and usually provide better quality of service than any private service provider.

"As such they are a cost or overhead which must be born by the productive sectors of the economy"

As is paying the rent for a house. It does not mean that the rent is out of the economy. The rent is even becoming a revenue in the house owner's balance sheet. This Cost / Revenue accountability with overhead can always be reversed. More, every one who ever did a balance sheet knows very well that the "overhead" factor is everything but accurate. You count this, and not that for very various reasons. Where some see costs, others see investments and vice versa. R&D costs in a company usually is a good example of something difficult to make fit in a balance sheet.

I personnaly see a huge cost for the society when someone is bying a ferrari and our children will have to pay for reparing it's damage, but your accountability system does not take it in it's overhead. But it takes trains infrastructures eventhough it will cost much less to our childrens.

You could very well write :

"As such Ferraris are a cost or overhead which must be born by the public sectors of the economy because the private sector just does not see it and does not want to see it"

All this is only words and a way of counting things. It's all cultural.

But on one point France has a problem : the anglo saxon accountibitly pattern is spreading, forbidening us to count the way we want. This is actually a very big issue at the EU and different nation states are lobbying about it. The way you count make you win or loose money. And the french culture of public services does not fit into the anglo saxon accountability system. That's a real issue for France. But it does not mean we are wrong. It just means that cultural imperialism is everywhere, also in accountability rules.

[rocket]

Dominique

"the anglo saxon accountibitly pattern is spreading, forbidening us to count the way we want."

Yes Dominique, Soviet style accounting practices are dying and good riddance to them. May they follow the same path as Soviet style communism into the trash heap of history.

Other than that your remarks on accounting are absolutely incomprehensible.

By the way Dominique. Do you have your own business and do you employ personnel? Or is that a form of slavery for you?

Creative accounting (France) as you so gleefully express the merits still has not come up with the alternative to the notion of responsibility.

It seems that justification of waste has been the watchword of la france d'après guerre. Now that France has democratically elected a President who wants to change this, a handful of leftists, anarchist and whatever other "racaille gauchiste" and other flotsam of the society want to sabotage the democratic process that the French people democratically elected.

So what's new in France?

Of course Dominique this is all the fault of anglo saxon imperialism. Another typical victimization position on your part and on the part of a great deal of your countrymen/woman. Of course if you can't do it than it must be the fault of the anglos.

Frank, I felt your comments were very well thought out and expressed. yet in addressing these comments to Dominique you are "barking up the wrong tree" as the saying goes.

His paradigm seems to be "criticize the system" but when change affects me for the common good I will stand firmly against.

This is what in France are called "nonistes" Everything for them and let the others eat cake.

It's time to fire up the Karcher.

[Terry]

Frank said:

"I would greatly prefer to have essential services such as schools/hospitals under state control as I do not think the profit motive is always the best way of assuring quality/cost control – particularly where a service is effectively a monopoly - but that requires the state to ensure effective and accountable management of such services."

It is indeed rare that the government EVER ensures "effective and accountable management". That is because government bureaucracies are rarely effective or accountable. As long as things like teachers and doctors cost money, you need experienced professionals running those industries not the boobs we have all come to know permeate government bureaucracies. Public service seems to be infected with people who cannot make it in the private sector. I wouldnt want the same type of people who make getting a driver's license such an unbearable chore to decide what health care I am entitled to.

The profit motive works. As Adam Smith wrote, the butcher provides me with meat so that he can feed his family. The butcher will base his prices on the cost of the meat from his supplier, his business expenses and the profit (what he needs to live on). The butcher is in the best position to know what these amounts are. He knows what the costs are and what the market will bear in price. His profit is kept in check by what his competitor's charge. The butcher's self-interests allows me to buy meat rather than have to go out and slaughter my own cow. When you introduce government bureaucrats, you screw up the entire pricing system. The government NEVER cares about minimizing costs. That's why it always cost the government more to build a building, more to build a road or anything else than the private sector. That is because government spending is the most ineffecient form of spending according to Milton Friedman. Bureaucrats spending other people's money on other things. If you gave me a $1,000, Frank (or maybe euro now) to spend on someone I didnt know, do you think I would spend it wisely?

The difference between Adam Smith and Marx is stark. Marx discussed how HE thought things ought to be. Adam Smith studied how things are. He went into great detail of how prices and salaries were determined. His findings were based on commonse sense and an excellent understanding of human nature. Prices, salaries, the monetary system didnt just sprout up out of the ground one day. Instead, economics is based on basic conventions that have been running for a thousand years.

[Frank Schnittger]

...yet in addressing these comments to Dominique you are "barking up the wrong tree" as the saying goes.
- Rocket

Thanks for responding - like you I found his comments largely incoherent and incomprehensible.

I once had a Mathematics professor who took 2 weeks of lectures to "prove" that 1 + 1 = 2. In doing so he seemed to make so many assumptions that I would much rather simply assume 1 + 1 = 2. I switched course soon after.

I'm not sure what 1 + 1 equals in Dominique’s system of accountancy, but here we have no difficulty in accounting for R&D investment or Ferrari purchases - in financial, environmental or infrastructural terms.

There is, however, an inbuilt hostility amongst service providers, particularly in the public sector, towards anyone doing any kind of cost benefit analysis of the service they provide.

They have no difficulty in claiming a right to sometimes quite astronomical levels of investment, but are quite hostile that anyone should seek to question the level of benefit that will accrue from those investments.

It seems that the very concept of "a return on investment" is some Machiavellian capitalist plot in their eyes - all very understandable, of course, when it is other people's (the taxpayers) money they are seeking to spend!

But how dare taxpayers demand a greater return on their investment in terms of guaranteed and improved services - that is an Anglo-Saxon capitalist conspiracy to subvert the the cosseted privileges of the Civil Service.

In some ways Civil Servants have never have to grow up, because it is not their own money they are spending and it is in their interest to obfuscate the true cost of the services they are providing. They are not accountable with their jobs and future prospects if they screw up in a major way.

Dominique reflects those attitudes perfectly. He is "entitled" to his privileges and doesn't feel the need to be accountable for the quality of the service he provides - certainly not to the point of being sacked if his "clients" are not happy with the service he provides.

[Dominique]

Rocket,

Accountability goes through national and international standards. Laws are different in different countries. Globalization puts pressure on national standards, whether french or american. Same in all areas : from telecom industry to toys safety rules, and also accountability rules. Nothing to do with so called "soviet style".

More, according to EU standards, France is in deficit (according to the french one also of course). But this very french deficit is made of the defense army costs that is doing the job for other european countries. How come isn't it counted in other countries deficits but only in the french one? Lithuania is spending 0€ for it's defence, counting on the US taxpayer. It has therefore no deficit! Is that normal? If defense spending was shared with the rest of the european union, pchhiiiit! no more french deficit! accountability miracle! That's why Sarko has been trying to push the idea to Bruxelles that army cost should not be part of the 3% allowed deficit. Nation's overheads are complex issues, very political and linked to the historical and geographical situations. Not quite paperworks only.

Maybe you think of high speed trains, cheapest electricity in Europe and maybe the world, best healthcare system etc...is "soviet type"? Then, "soviet type" is doing a pretty good job after all! Don't make a fool of yourself.

Is that so difficult to understand that you right away feel like you are being blamed for being anglosaxon?

Don't be paranoïac.

As for "it seems that justification of waste has been the watchword of la france d'après guerre. ", i just hope you won't need the sécurité sociale who might save your life one day for free.... But you're right, the french just loose their life living longer without spending. How silly isn't it?

"Now that France has democratically elected a President who wants to change this, a handful of leftists, anarchist and whatever other "racaille gauchiste" and other flotsam of the society want to sabotage the democratic process that the French people democratically elected."

Yep Rocket, flotsam ...flotsam ...unfortunatly, the world just can't get rid of flotsam .. It has tried for the last...2 or 3000 years and...still there. We actually may have to deal with it...

You know what? Floatsam is everywhere...A world without floatsam would be terrifying. It would just mean the end of it.

[Dominique]

Franck,

I am afraid you're wrong. I used to have clients before, making good money out of it. After many years, I decided to change make more usefull or enjoyable things, making less money out of it. That's life. Some people do actually think this way. That's all. Money is not my only goal. Sorry. Civil servants are not only those you describe as not willing to change whatever happens. I am a very good example as i changed many times. I am now civil servant for less than a year and am very new to it!

Blaming me for doing this choice sounds "fascist" to me as it sounds like a denial of my freedom of choice. How dare you claim that i made a wrong choice? or that civil servants have no value, or don't grow up? My taxes also do pay civil servants, for good!

And believe me, i cost a lot less to the society now, and do a much more usefull job.

Sorry, Ferrari is a total waste and a huge cost to me. We'll all pay for the damages it does. Different values.

For R&D, i was maybe not clear enough. Try to think of the R&D overhead cost in a hightech industry before the product was sold, during it is sold, after it was sold, when being maintained, for one or for various customers, with or without adaptations. You'll get an idea of the complexity of the issue. "What customer is R&D working for" can be a complex issue. It only leads to R&D overheads estimates according to the projects. Nothing scientific in those numbers.

And you're right : "return on investments" is not always a positive concept here. This concept often forbids people from doing things. Thank god, we do not expect a "return on investment" while we cure someone from a cancer. We just cure him. Neither do i expect a "return on investment" when i teach a kid to read an write. I just do. Values again. The very concept of "benefit" can be discussed and money does not describe it entirely.

Maybe it is confuse, i should make it in french probably

[Frank Schnittger]

Dominque - I'm glad you enjoy being a civil servant, and society is a net beneficiary if you are now doing more useful things for less money.

I hope your new "customers" and your new employer recognises your much greater contribution and rewards you accordingly.

My problem is that, typically, in the civil service there are very inadequate systems in place to recognise and reward over-performance just as there are very inadequate systems in place for dealing with gross under-performance.

If you are a teacher you will therefore be paid no more than the worst teacher in the school, and he will, quite possibly, be promoted over your head because he has greater "seniority" (= a lifetime of cheating his students) than you.

Your prestige as a teacher will also be influenced by the very worst in your profession - because you will be judged, collectively, by the overall quality of the school, and many more people will remember the few very poor teachers and not the many average or good ones.

I hope this will not affect your happiness in the job. For most people it does - and many teachers take the attitude - why do I bother to work very hard if my colleague calls in sick every day he feels like it and still gets the same pay and benefits. I even have to supervise his students when he doesn't bother to show up for work...

I have known public sector workers to be actively victimised by their colleagues if they work too hard because that would show their colleagues up for the wasters that they are.

It is also quite easy to judge value for money and "return on investment" when it comes to teaching kids to read or curing cancer patients.

There are international/regional/sectoral comparisons available on literacy rates and other measures of educational accomplishment - and to what degree these correlate with the level of investment in education. Similarly, healthcare outcomes - cancer cure rates etc. can be correlated with investment in oncology services in different countries/regions.

In fact it is vital that such statistics are available, because this enables health and education managers to target additional investment in areas of greatest need and most successful outcomes.

We do not live in a world of infinite resources and therefore successful companies/countries target the areas they invest in very carefully based on such cost benefit studies.

In Terry’s world, healthcare expenditure will be targeted where there is most money to be made (the profit motive) and thus a lot of resources will be targeted at e.g. cosmetic plastic surgery for the rich and very little on cancer treatment for the poor. Even public healthcare/environmental issues such as disease control can be neglected with the result that even the rich may ultimately suffer due to higher risks of infection.

Thus it is legitimate for a Government – where in theory at last – all voters have an equal voice, to target areas of greater need – e.g. higher public health standards or improved oncology services for all. The problem is that they do not always do so very efficiently, and so money is wasted. Part of the reason for this is the aversion which many civil servants have to effective cost benefit analyses of their programmes – because they know their funding may be cut if their programme is found to be less beneficial than others.

It is this opposition to cost benefit analysis which you have articulated so effectively here. There is nothing inherently Anglo-Saxon about it. It is just good management practice – practiced even by those few French companies which are still world leaders in their field.

Ireland, for instance does well on education but badly on healthcare. Where we have done best is in the area of investment in industry. Many years ago we targeted the computer, telecommunications, and pharmaceutical industries for particularly focused investment as we considered them to be the growth sectors for the future.

As a result Ireland is now a world leader in those fields and as a direct consequence our GDP/capita is now much higher than France’s. This means we now have more wealth to spend on the sort of services we all need, but sometimes that money is spent not wisely, but too well.

And yes, some very few fools spend their money on Ferraris. We tax the hell out of them and they can’t drive them faster than 120km in any case. Then we wreck them by having potholes and speed bumps on our roads. That is why there are practically no Ferraris in Ireland!

[rocket]

Dominique

"I am afraid you're wrong. I used to have clients before, making good money out of it."

Sorry but I am in stitches. I mean literally I am rolling on the florr laughing. Someone who had a private business, made good money and then gave it up to be civil servant at what 2500€/month max.

You expect us to believe that you were making good money. How F**king stupid do you thing we are.

With the way you talk about customers on this blog I can only come to the following conclusion

You went belly up my friend! Stop jerking our chains.

I claim that you made the right choice to become a civil servant. How you ever managed to make it past one year with a private business and your accounting principles escapes me. ROTFL

[rocket]

Dominique

"Thank god, we do not expect a "return on investment" while we cure someone from a cancer. We just cure him"

How about tainted blood and HIV. Your socialist government led by Laurent Fabius refused to by American blood testing machinery for HIV probably either because

1. They didn't want to spend the money
2. Because it was American machinery

The result is as we all know.

"For R&D, i was maybe not clear enough. Try to think of the R&D overhead cost in a hightech industry before the product was sold, during it is sold, after it was sold, when being maintained, for one or for various customers, with or without adaptations"

Right now you are clear.

t'as vraiment besoin de demander à ta direction des cours d'anglais. illico

[Dominique]

Rocket,

You are pathetic.

when i write "making good money", i speak about my standards of course, not yours... It would probably be peanuts for you.

Come on baby, choose your Ferrari and get laid! The planet just thank you for it.

So finally we agree, i made the right choice for me, you made yours. Alors arrête de chouiner. Puisque tout le monde est content, où est le problème?

Franck,

"It is this opposition to cost benefit analysis which you have articulated so effectively here. There is nothing inherently Anglo-Saxon about it. It is just good management practice – practiced even by those few French companies which are still world leaders in their field."

What can i say? I was trying to say that a country is not a company, but it seams that this very idea is out of reach. Your reaction sounds therefore very anglosaxon to me. Sorry.

I'll try differently : you can't fire citizens and costs are not all written down on a balance sheet!

So, a positive balance sheet does not solve all issues. Neither does a negative one of course.

Private and public services are both necessary, creating a tension that is necessary for a society to survive. Getting rid of one of them is pur ideology leading to chaos. Any organisation needs a counterpart to make sure it is not almighty. If not the state, then a church, if not a church, some sects, beliefs or whatever. Market only is not a proper organisation for a society

[LITTLE BIG HORN]

Rocket,

"I happen to be a Reaganite"

Reagan? Ronald Reagan? El Carnicero? The Butcher, as they say in South America? The Colgate president? Who called affectionately Thatcher "my balls"?

Reagan.. Lenine...Bonnet blanc, blanc bonnet.

Welcome to the club!

[Dominique]

Franck,

Regarding Irland,

"Many years ago we targeted the computer, telecommunications, and pharmaceutical industries for particularly focused investment as we considered them to be the growth sectors for the future."

You forget the main part : Irland was taken in the EU and was allowed not to respect the rules regarding business tax. That is the main reason for Irland success : european subsidies through taxes exemption. If the rest of Europe was doing the same, Irland would not be where it is now. All of this is thanks to continental Europe subsidies.

[Terry]

Frank:

"In Terry’s world, healthcare expenditure will be targeted where there is most money to be made (the profit motive) and thus a lot of resources will be targeted at e.g. cosmetic plastic surgery for the rich and very little on cancer treatment for the poor. Even public healthcare/environmental issues such as disease control can be neglected with the result that even the rich may ultimately suffer due to higher risks of infection."

If this is true, then every doctor would be a plastic surgeon. Cosmetic surgery only benefits a VERY small percentage of people. Cancer, on the other hand, affects everyone. There is considerably more profit motive to discover the cure for cancer than to perform cosmetic surgery on a small number of people. The problem with understanding health care costs is the refusal by some (not you Frank) to recognize that health care is a commodity that is subject to the forces of supply and demand like any other one. As long as things cost money in this world, medical care will remain a commodity no matter whether the government is running healthcare or not.

[Daniel Strohl]

Dominique,

Re : Ferrari(s)

Your point about the capitalist(ic) Ferrari(s)is funny. May be you will in turn enjoy the following quote from a recent book (see note) :

"At the end of the nineties, "Le Figaro" .... assured that that they had been compelled, following the request of the workers, to increase the size of their parking lot at ROISSY PRINT in order to be able to accommodate for (their workers) Mercedes's".

The mentioned workers were members of the famous union CGT du Livre, which managed to get very high salaries for their "militants", so high with respect to the work actually made, that several papers did collapse.

Note : The above quote (in translation) is an extract (page 55) of the book :
"Spéciale Dernière - Qui veut la mort de la presse quotidienne française ? ". Author : Emmanuel Schwartzenberg - Editor : Calmann-Lévy.

[Frank Schnittger]

"You forget the main part : Irland was taken in the EU and was allowed not to respect the rules regarding business tax. That is the main reason for Irland success : european subsidies through taxes exemption." - Dominique

There are no European rules governing business tax rates - you hardly expect us to adopt French tax rates which were designed to stifle entrepreneurship as much as possible?

Thus there have been no subsidies through taxes exemption. Where we have been subsidised is through the Common Agricultural Policy which was designed primarily to subsidise French Farmers but which has helped our agricultural industry as well.

You will be pleased to hear that Ireland is now a net contributory to the EU so Europe is now getting a return on its investment in Ireland.

Oh I forgot - you don't believe in National accounts or return on investment - that is an Anglo-Saxon invention - so we'll just take our current subvention to the EU back, shall we?

----------

Terry - there is no doubt that medical RESEARCH is targeted at the more widespread diseases as these offer the greatest prospect of a return on investment. This is, however, not due to free market forces, but because Governments target most of their healthcare budgets at the more widespread diseases.

Private, for profit, medical TREATMENTS do not treat poorer patients at all, no matter how severe or widespread the condition, because these patients cannot pay for their treatment.

Private, for profit, medicine only get involved in such treatment programmes if Governments or private not for profit foundations come up with the money.

I do not dispute that (like lawyers) many private, profit driven medical service providers do pro bono work as well. However, that is very much on the fringes of the huge ocean of unmet or unfunded medical needs in the world.

The vast majority of medical needs which are met would not be met at all if it were not for widespread Government intervention.

The private healthcare model you extol actually makes most of its money (in most countries) from governments paying for the healthcare needs of their citizens. Only a fraction of world healthcare costs are actually met directly, and in full, from the recipient of that healthcare either directly or via private medical insurance.

The free market solution to the sick poor is to let them die and instead provide many over the top and unnecessary procedures for the wealthy in order to maximise profits.

In the free market system I wouldn’t like to be either poor or wealthy. If I am poor I do not get the treatment I need. If I am wealthy I cannot be sure that the treatment recommended by my doctor is for my health benefit or his financial benefit.

Some things are best managed on the basis of the real needs of people rather than on the profit maximisation motive of the service providers. This requires a social service ethic which must be supported in the face of market erosion or subversion by the private profit motive.

Of course there is corruption within social service providers – people working in their own rather than in their clients best interest - but that is not to say that targetting programmes at real unmet needs rather than at the most lucrative markets is not a valid objective for government. It just requires better management systems to ensure that the real objectives are met and this is more difficult if there is no private profit motive to drive the process forward.

[Maggie G]

Thanks for taking the time to explain all this to us, Frank. Your explanations are always clear and easy to undertand.

I am not sure that Robert M would agree with everything you said. He wanted to talk about this topic during the summer but no one followed him up. He mentioned a Canadian who took the government to court in order to have the right to pay his doctor himself instead of the government health insurance doing it. Maybe this isn't quite the same thing as you are talking about. Hopefully we will hear from him, because I think this is one of his areas of interest. It has always been one of Terry's favourite themes too.

I have a cartoon here ('Non Sequitur') cut out of the paper a few years ago. The hospital administrator is speaking to a surgeon who is standing at the operating table cutting into a patient. "We have a saying in the front office -- a dead patient is a cost-effective patient. So I'll be handling the nurses' duties from now on."

[rocket]

Dominique

"So finally we agree, i made the right choice for me, you made yours. Alors arrête de chouiner. Puisque tout le monde est content, où est le problème?"

Yes Dominique I'm sure you made the best choice for YOU!(me with a big grin and much irony) Without any doubt.

As you have spoken so highly about clients in the past the best thing for you and for consumerism is for your behind to be behind some desk pushing a pencil.

This civil servant job (not all civil servants, but you) gives you the possibility to dress down anyone you want without any consequences for your job.

"Come on baby, choose your Ferrari and get laid! The planet just thank you for it."

????????

[Dominique]

Terry,

"The problem with understanding health care costs is the refusal by some (not you Frank) to recognize that health care is a commodity that is subject to the forces of supply and demand like any other one"

What is a problem for you is part of what defines "being human" for me.

Franck :

"so we'll just take our current subvention to the EU back, shall we?"

If only! i am absolutly in favor of getting rid of countries who do not play by the tax rules in the EU. As Sarko said during the campaign, and i agreed for once, it is absolutly impossible to go on with the EU taking the jobs out of the countries that make the effort to set up social laws. He even said that these countries were "sucking up" social protection from continental Europe. The very purpose of the UE was political, willing the uniformisation of business rules as there can't be a fair market if businesses face different rules.

A market = competition according to common rules, not competition whatever the rules.

I remember very well the mood of those years when the european market was built (especially Maastricht 1992): they were all saying "poor countries can't afford social laws, so they start without and will set them up later, it's a way of giving them subsidies". The "later" never came.

Irland has recieved subsidies for years and is now playing the "flemish belgium" game : "now we are fine, have money, but we don't accept the rules; go to hell!". Sorry but i believe that was part of the deal from the beginning.

Future of the EU is very dark : countries are now understanding that the deal was fake from the start. No wonder it will therefore collapse, sending every country to it's own market, rules and laws, trying to be better than the other. Nationalism is already on the rise, EU influence lower than ever, while globalization is obviously going faster than the political unification of Europe.

Too late, too bad. But don't rejoice. Irland may very well loose access to european market once this market will have collapsed...

[Frank Schnittger]

"Irland has recieved subsidies for years and is now playing the "flemish belgium" game : "now we are fine, have money, but we don't accept the rules; go to hell!". Sorry but i believe that was part of the deal from the beginning. " - Dominique

You're making all of this up Dominique. Ireland is not in breach of any EU rules governing corporate taxation or anything else.

Perhaps you are having difficulty adjusting to the fact that it is no longer France alone making up the EU rules in it's own self interest.

EU rules are now made up by ALL member states and no one else wants to go down the French "head in the sand" anti-globalisation route.

Get used to it - France is now just one country amongst many in the EU, and for so long as it remains in relative decline its influence will continue to decline within the EU.

If France wants to withdraw from the EU, then fine. The other 24 members will get along just fine pursuing progressive ("Anglo-Saxon") economic policies leaving France to decline into a moribund state.

I don't think Sarkozy will let that happen. You don't deserve him.

[rocket]

I have a funny story to relate about cultural differences between France and Ireland. I was in Dublin last January and walking along the streets I saw a few beggars. People of working age who didn't seem to be mentally deficient. At least 3 times during the 3 days I was in Dublin people came over to the beggars and literally told them to "GET A JOB" and get off the streets. Even a couple times these were women speaking. Also on a bus tour to the peat bogs the tour guide spoke about the employment situation in Ireland and said that those who really wanted to find a job could in Ireland. Those who didn't, were simply lazy and taking advantage of the state.

The marked difference with France is very evident where victimization plays such a high role of people's relations with beggars as well as every other perceived injustice. Of course where I live there are beggars next to the local supermarket and systematically there are people who stop to commiserate with them and to perpetuate the begging by giving money and no one would dare say such atrocities as "get a job".

[isobel]

Re Rocket on beggars, I did see one woman in Paris tell a beggar to get a job, but I think she might have been partly motivated by racism as the guy obviously wasn't French.I wish people would stop giving money to those "musicians" (entre guillemets)on the metro, the usagers really are taken hostage by these people as there's no escaping them whilst they regail you with their limited repertoire of french accordian classics.I imagine their pourvoir d'achat has plummeted since the beginning of this strike!

[Dominique]

Rocket,

"The marked difference with France is very evident where victimization plays such a high role of people's relations with beggars as well as every other perceived injustice"

That is so true! I can't stand those Johnny Halydays and other priviledges tax payers playing to be the victim of the socalled "french state dictatorship". I am with you on that one ;=))

Franck,

"Perhaps you are having difficulty adjusting to the fact that it is no longer France alone making up the EU rules in it's own self interest."

I don't! i was quite explaining the very opposite and trying to imagine the consequences of it : the inevitable collapse of the EU. If big countries no longer find an interest in the EU, it will undoubtly collapse. France, Germany or the UK will never accept rules made up by a lithuanian comissair representing less than a french big city. That's called democracy and representation.

Regarding the EU, I believe you forget one thing : the "intention" (if correct in english) of the EU at start. You may believe this is pointless but i don't. This intention changed so much that EU founders no longer go on with the european dreem they used to have. And the founders were the only ones who realy wanted the EU. If they no longer want it, this will, whether you like it or not, whether Sarko likes it or not, lead to a political collapse. This is going on like that since the roman empire and Charlemagne. As soon as the "peripherie" of Europe is included in the political process of unification lad by continental europe, the process is dead. Unfortunatly.

Regarding the market, i believe that there is no need of a EU for building a single market without rules: the globilisation creates it on itself. The EU is pointless regarding this. The only purpose of it is to define common rules so people play by the same rules within the union.

[Frank Schnittger]

Yes Dominique - the EU has evolved remarkably in range, depth and scope since the original European Coal and Steel Community which was about litle more than creating a common market for a few key industries.

However I am surprised that you, as a socialist, are articulating an anti-EU case, because the EU is the last bastion of a dirigiste approach to public policy within Europe.

That is why the British (as the arch Anglo-Saxons) are permanently in a love-hate relationship with the EU (85% hate!).

With the rise in nationalism throughout Europe, the EU may well come under a lot more pressure, but France, of all the major countries, has the most to lose if the EU collapses.

The EU is the only chance that France has of remaining on the world stage. Without it the Anglo-Saxon empire will reign supreme and unchallenged throughout most of the world.

[The 3rd Column]

I don't think there's any turning back -- the EU will remain, if not to serve its original purpose, "never again war", it will stay on for purpose of economic unity.

[John Gregory Flinn]

Excuse me if this seems like an essay.

Volkswagen have been very adept in claiming how the Combi has transended those sixties “class-war” fashions by holding its appeal over the decades.
Cleverly they portray this appeal as a metaphor to represent changing or 'maturing' political opinions. Charles relates that Sarkozy was always on the right-wing.
However it seems to me that the metaphor is mischieviously “mixed”, because there are no 'left and right' in a democracy – simply one group trying to wrest power from another.

The actions of sabotage should dispel any doubts about the real nature of the 'leftist' movement and their 'class struggle'. One should simply conclude that the label 'class-war' is just a label, a phoney, a pretension - even a fallacy.
And therefore (sic Plato), a pretentious fallacy
It is merely a polemic invented to romantically characterize a group who want power, and not too fussy how they get it.

The opposing group always lay claim to the 'left' because of past romantic notions attached to this 'side'. The media inevitably perpetuate this notion by allowing them more space than they deserve to mount their pretentious fallacies about the status quo they seek to overthrow. This indulgence aids their cause by giving it some legitimacy and some kind of political rectitude for a movement that demonstrably carries a core of saboteurs.

George Orwell in Britain wrote about 'class-struggle' in his essay 'The Lion and the Unicorn', and others in the early 1940s. He promulgated the romantic notion of a revolution that was materialising in that quiet 'english' way which the Labour party held dear.
He blamed the Property owners, Colonel Blimp, Public schools (expensive private education), Shareholders – even fat Ladies in Rolls-Royces for holding back the 'genius' of England.
In 1945 the Labour Govt under Atlee nationalised all the 'commanding heights' of the economy, with the avowed intention of releasing this genius that Orwell had forecast was simply waiting for a socialist administration.
Within 10 years the dream was illusory, by the end of the 70s it was quite evident that it was a simple fallacy.
All the commanding heights now have been privatized except the NHS (which remains as a 'collective' to this day).
The new owners of power had come to resemble the stereotypes George Orwell had so malevolently castigated earlier, rather than the new Jerusalem (of their Internationale) it was meant to create.
The Labour movement was proving to be just as reactionary - and at times insurrectionist in its tactics, just as prone to the same mistakes (in fact they found new mistakes, like mass immigration and fecklessness) and just as self-serving as the group that had been ousted and had been blamed for England's ills.

Thus class struggles are a myth. Sarkozy knows this and clearly believes most other sensible people accept it too. And he meets up with the striking workers believing they are open to sensible argument.
Sarkozy seems not to be a philosopher-politician; he simply wants to better balance the books, get more value out of certain public sectors, invigorate some growth and improve the purchasing power of the French.
There a still some demagogues who inhabit the militant Unions and seek to wrest power via the street. And ruin the learning in the FACs where the likes of Bruno “I'm-so-smug” fear that autonomy means the end of their 'acquis collectif'.

In a democracy there will always be disparities in wealth and power, whether arising by luck, intelligence, hard work or however.
Accordingly there will always be somebody who will organise and agitate to change the balance of such disparities - usually on the grounds of leftist politics.

The dangers remain, more so because some of these 'leftist' activists and militants seek new conflicts with the status quo through 'green' politics or even Islam.

[Dominique]

Franck,

"However I am surprised that you, as a socialist, are articulating an anti-EU case, because the EU is the last bastion of a dirigiste approach to public policy within Europe.

That is why the British (as the arch Anglo-Saxons) are permanently in a love-hate relationship with the EU (85% hate!).
"

Well, this is a point of view. The mood in France is more like :

"the EU is no longer the bastion of a dirigiste approach to public policy within Europe.
That is why the French (as the arch of "founders" according to the polls) distrust more and more the EU (remember the 55% NO!). Even Sarko got that point. Please note that he is not at all a "liberal" (in the french pejorativ meaning)

You say :
"The EU is the only chance that France has of remaining on the world stage. Without it the Anglo-Saxon empire will reign supreme and unchallenged throughout most of the world."

?? I am not a "france imperialism" militant. Neither am i a a militant of a "France versus the anglosaxons on the world stage". ?? That's an very anglosaxon phantasy indeed! I just want us to be able to go one with the concept "the rule of law made by elected people" and the ability of these elected people to make projects. No less, no more. I know it sounds "dirigist" to you, but it sounds "democratic" to me. Depriving the elected bodies from their power is depriving democracy from it's meaning. And the EU is obviously working against state action nowadays.

I believe (maybe i am wrong) that the french were supporting the EU as long as they thought the EU would seek to built a political union in order to "organize" the market with laws and make "state like" big size industrial projects (Ariane, TGV, ESA, PAC, european army, organisation of the land...). We heard during 40 years ideas like "we need to gather with other europeans in order to do with them what we can't do alone". The EU is today sending the very opposite message : "don't even thing of spending public money". The french understood in 2005 that they had been fooled for more than 30 years (when the UK came in actually) and that the kind of political union they hopped will never happen. The more countries in the EU, the less chance there is for a truly political europe. This being understood, they will face the consequence of it : the EU is destroying everything the french believe in since more than 1400 years : the power of the state and it's ability to organize and ease people's life. One day (10? 20 years?), they will have to make a choice. I'm sure they'll choose the french state against the EU non-state.

Or maybe the dirigiste approach to public policy within Europe will make a comeback before. Then, the french will support the EU again.

[Frank Schnittger]

I'm afraid the EU you dream about is gone forever, Dominique. That is why the Brits were so keen on enlargement to include the East Europeans. They knew that would prevent the EU developing into an extension of the French State.

The favourite British pastime is still to bash the "Brussels bureaucracy" and to ridicule its attempts at regulation. You seem to be saying that the bureaucracy is not powerful enough.

Ireland has been one of the most pro-EU countries, but even that is changing - though for different reasons. There is a feeling that the EU is not accountable enough to its citizens, and to the European Parliament, and too embroiled in endless horse-trading negotiations between Governments.

The new constitution was supposed to improve the level of accountability, transparency and efficiency in decision making. I doubt it will ever now be passed in any form, which means the EU may well either become sclerotic or fall apart because it is too difficult to get unanimous agreement amongst 27 members.

The Treaty should have been passed before enlargement, and enlargement made conditional on it being passed. But it is too late to change all that now.

I think it will take a huge external crises to make people realise that the EU cannot go on in its present form - without a directly elected commission answerable to Parliament - but I cannot see it happening in the foreseeable future.

[Daniel Strohl]

Juliette,

(I study in an Institute of Political Science)

Sorry, Juliette, I missed your answer regarding our "young" Bruno. It is difficult to follow all the threads in parallel. As my wife puts it, "Daniel ne sait pas faire deux choses à la fois !"

You have made the right choice - I am afraid that many students will continue to loose (at least partially) their time in our universities, as long as "le ménage n'aura pas été fait".