Europe is going nowhere

Europe seems to be sliding back to its past confrontations, with Germany, France and Russia jostling for power on the continent, and Britain across the Channel wondering which party will best serve its purpose. This secular struggle was frozen for almost half a century by the face-off between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. But the breakup of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War by default in the early 1990s put nations back in the forefront. East and West Germany were united, Czechoslovakia was split in two, Yugoslavia exploded into multiple pieces, and parts of the defunct USSR gained nationhood. The communist block became a multitude. And the wealth and glitter of NATO and the EU were a strong attractive force that left Russia out on its own.

For a while the European Union looked as though it might become the world’s dominant power. Its economy could pretend to such status, but militarily it was puny as well as being a political and diplomatic nonentity. Even the monetary union could not overcome the nationalistic particularities of its members. Their diverging rules on taxation, borrowing and spending resulted in the financial storm that recently threatened the Union’s currency. Anyhow, America’s hegemony allows no competitors, nor does the US dollar as the world’s measure of value.

The Second World War divided Europe between the two victors, the USA and the USSR. As an ex-colony and with a shared language, America has conflicting historic ties with Britain that do not exist with continental Europe, whose conflicting historic ties are with Russia. In 1945, Russian and Anglo-American armies occupied Europe in a de facto division agreed in Teheran (Nov-Dec 1943) and confirmed in Yalta (Feb 1945). It was the Cold War’s front line, but hardly a shot was fired and all the fighting went on elsewhere. As it was not a war zone, the border between Eastern and Western Europe was permeable. Official delegations would visit the other side, mostly from the West, and clandestine transits occurred from the East. But the border was there and the threat seemed very real, with massive life endangering weapons pointed and ready to fire. Divided Europe was American or Russian. For almost half a century European nations were the satellites of a two star system. When the Soviet star fell, Eastern Europeans aspired to be Americans, whereas French and German leaders (Mitterrand & Kohl) were plotting a political and monetary union for an independent Europe.

Europe has a long history, and its nations have all struggled to constitute themselves. Their national story-telling and myths really began in the 19^th century with general literacy, the popular press and railway travel. However, some of the budding nations were building colonial empires. This led them to proclaim not only their difference from their European neighbours, but also their superiority over their colonial subjects. It was the age of chauvinism and jingoism, the rise of Bismarck’s 2^nd Reich and territorial expansion by France, Britain and Russia. European nations had imposed themselves around the world by force. This could only lead them to confronting themselves to decide who was top dog. Their nationalist hubris would provoke two world wars.

America and Russia had cut Europe in two, creating a physical and ideological divide that lasted four decades. When the Soviet system unravelled and fell apart, the fantasy was propagated of a unified Europe regaining its ancient glory and predominance. However, Russia and its closest neighbours, ruled by oligarchs and criminal gangs, seemed beyond the pale. So that uniting the continent was never seriously considered, and leaving out Russia meant leaving in America and its instrument, the North Atlantic Treaty. Opening the Union to Eastern nations did not create a new power block. It just pushed back NATO’s borders to the east. Europe’s bid for autonomy was too half-hearted to succeed.

Europe has always been divided by conflicting stories. Even the use of force by Charlemagne, Napoleon and Hitler, was unsuccessful. Even the Latin nations, Romanised for centuries, have different idioms, folklore and historical points of view. Europe’s old antagonisms and the ancient habit its members have of disparaging one another, as well as industrial and financial competition, do not obstruct a common market, but they are a huge and probably definitive obstacle to political and monetary union. The British manoeuvres to leave Europe are the sign that the model conceived by Germany and France twenty years ago is failing. And the ability of today’s leaders to pick up the pieces and start again is doubtful. The enthusiasm for European construction has largely abated, member nations are becoming distrustful and suspicious of one another and razor-wire barriers are being unrolled. With Great Britain in Europe projecting to become “Little England” in a “special relationship” with America, and with North-South, East-West divisions on the continent, NATO’s military alliance may soon be Europe’s last remaining bond, all under US tutorship.

Les limites de la croissance

En moyenne sur un siècle – avec une contre-performance dans les années 30 et une sur-performance dans les années 50 – le PIB mondial s’est accru de 4% par an et a doublé tous les vingt ans. Pour le dernier doublement, 1990 – 2010, il a fallu que le Brésil, la Russie, l’Inde, la Chine et l’Afrique du Sud (suivis de près par l’Indonésie et le Nigeria) aient des taux de croissance à deux chiffres. Ce qui fait qu’un nouveau doublement d’ici 2030 n’est pas concevable – où se produirait-il, en Inde, en Afrique? Par quels moyens? – et la croissance promise par les politiciens, les banquiers, les industriels et les idéologues n’aura pas lieu. Ils font ce vœu pieux sachant que, sans croissance conséquente, le capitalisme du profit, de l’intérêt et de l’accumulation s’effondre. Un capitalisme qui surnage depuis cinq ans grâce aux créations monétaires des banques centrales proches de l’épuisement.

L’Histoire pointera peut-être le Brexit comme déclencheur, mais l’effondrement en cours du capitalisme est la conséquence de ses propres contradictions fondamentales. D’où vient la valeur qui paye le profit et l’intérêt? Comment se fait-il que tous les marchands reviennent du marché avec plus de valeur qu’ils n’y avaient apporté? D’où vient ce supplément? Rosa Luxemburg a posé cette question il y a cent ans (1), et a conclu que le supplément était fourni par le pillage colonial des ressources, des terres et du travail de la planète. Cela reste vrai aujourd’hui, mais il y a plus de pilleurs à se partager le monde. Devenu insuffisant, ce supplément impérial a été suppléé par un endettement généralisé. Mais les dettes s’accumulent et atteignent des paliers où elles s’autoalimentent sans retombées pour la consommation de biens et de services, des dettes pour payer des dettes. Cette situation s’est résolue dans le passé par de fortes fièvres inflationnistes. Qu’en sera-t-il demain, après la peste (déflation) le choléra (inflation)?

Quant à la reprise de la croissance, promise et attendue, elle dépend de la dette qui permet l’accumulation des profits et intérêts. Elle rencontre donc un double obstacle, celui de l’incapacité d’absorption de l’écosystème Terre, et celui d’un endettement qui sert à renouveler la dette existante plutôt que d’accroître la demande des consommateurs. La dette est supposée alimenter la demande qui paye les profits. Quand cela s’arrête, les profits doivent se prendre à la concurrence, nationale et internationale. Les entreprises jouent leurs survies dans un monde impitoyable, et la violence financière finit par tout imprégner.

Le capitalisme, dans sa quête de profits et d’accumulation, nous mène à nouveau vers la barbarie destructive si chère à Schumpeter. Mais le recul pour mieux sauter devra être bien plus radical que celui de 1930-1945. Alors il s’agissait de remplacer le charbon par le pétrole comme source principale de carburent et de produits dérivés. Alors que demain il faudra se passer des deux, et que ni le nucléaire ni les renouvelables sont capables de prendre le relais. En 1945 le monde s’éveillait au moteur à combustion – le petit deux-temps au bout d’un outil, le gros diesel sur un engin de chantier et l’énorme turbine d’un avion de ligne – de la puissance partout, à volonté et peu chère. Cela a permis une exploitation accrue des ressources de la planète, et a produit des résidus de plus en plus destructeurs des équilibres, sur terre, dans les océans et dans l’atmosphère. A présent que le point de non-retour semble atteint – voir les fuites massives de méthane tout autour du Cercle Arctique – et que les émissions humaines ne cessent de croître, une dégradation soudaine et sévère des conditions de vie va se produire dans un proche avenir (2). En fait, le seul suspense c’est lequel de la finance ou de l’écosystème va s’écrouler le premier.

1. L'Accumulation du Capital

2. Limits to Growth, World3-03