The lucid witness

Similar to Samuel Pepys habit of lapsing into French or even a bit of Italian to underplay, if not hide, his regular, affective adventures, and also perhaps to comfort himself in not having omitted anything in his diaries, Cœurdevey would lapse into his more fluent German, also disguising whatever else he considered personal.
But his particular case, confronted with the rigours and horrors of the Great War, would excuse him should any excuse ever be thought necessary.
The enormous value of Pepys notes, naturally including his endearing, affective adventures, are also beyond any bigoted dispraise.

Having read over 300 pages of almost 900 of Edouard Cœurdevey's diaries written during the whole of the first world war, I recently came across another particularly interesting passage :

8 juillet, 1916 (Somme)

'Les journaux ont le parfum du vin chaud. Trois nouvelles riches de promesses et d'espoir :
Les Russes arrêtés sur le Styr depuis trois semaines par les contre-offensives austro-allemandes ont eu le dernier mot, et leur victoire se développe hardiment. Les Anglais ont lutté durement mais valeuresement contre la Garde prussienne. "Ils" ont fait donner la Garde! Signe de temps. Enfin, plus grande victoire encore de nos Alliés- ils ont mis Lloyd George au ministre de la Guerre. The right man in the right place... Les veinards, ces Anglais, ils ont toujours eu et découvrent constamment, dans leurs crises graves, l'homme de la situation, l'homme audacieux, l'homme de l'avenir : Pitt, Gladstone, Lloyd George... et leur mérite, celui qui révèle le grand peuple qu'ils sont, c'est de le reconnaître, cet homme, et de lui faire crédit, de lui accorder une confiance hardie... Nous sommes moins favourisés et moins sages.' (Apparently written before Pétain, Foch and Clemenceau were to excel themselves).

Had such intelligence been put to better use, certainly in the first half of the Great War, (and this was a constant criticism that Cœurdevey himself often made in his diaries) perhaps there would never have been such an appallingly tragic and wasteful loss of lives, especially regarding the French, but that's another story.

For 'les Anglais' this is a moving and heart-warming observation of Cœurdevey. It also shows how perceptive and visionary he was, because history continued and still continues to reveal how true this observation is.
But it would be chauvinistic and unrealistic to attribute this exclusively to the Brits. History reveals that this is a global quality of humanity based on the will to survive and defend one's freedom and identity against those who directly threaten it.

It seems highly probable that Edouard Cœurdevey spent far more time writing in his diaries (carnets de guerre) than taking on the 'Boches'. It's just as well for posterity, and maybe also just as well for the 'Boches'.

___

To name only a few right men in the right place at the right time, omitting further English figures and national heroes of all other nations during the critical periods of history from the 18th century : George Washington (Commander of the Revolutionary forces against the British forces and the first President of the USA. Considered one of the greatest U.S Presidents. He symbolises republicanism and the founding of the United States of America). Abraham Lincoln (reunited the USA, made the famous 'Gettysburg Address'). Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (abolished the Sultanate, substituted Koranic laws with European ones and modernised Turkish Islam, defended Turkey and its national identity against the Allies at the end of WW1 and the Ottoman Empire). George Clemenceau ('Le Tigre' and 'le Père-la-Victoire' of WW1. Advocated 'la guerre jusqu'au bout'. With Foch and Pétain, in spite of the increasing doubts in French public opinion, adamantly led the French to victory). Maréchal Philippe Pétain (Verdun July, 1916, WW1). Ferdinand Foch (supreme commander of the Allied armies of WW1. Was to encouraged peace terms- Treaty of Versailles- to ensure that Germany would be militarily disabled. His declaration: "This is not peace. It is a 20 year Amnesty," proved to be fatally true).
Roosevelt (WW1 exponent of the submarine in the war effort, rejecter of U.S. neutrality in 1939, the start of WW2). Eisenhower, (allied commander WW2, 34th President of the USA). Charles de Gaulle (leader of the Free French Forces, principal encourager of French resistance against the Nazi German occupation of France, reunited the French population at the end of the war).

___

Le Traité

Sources- With grateful thanks- Edouard Cœurdevey Carnets de Guerre 1914-1918, Terre Humaine, © Plon Wikipedia, (Image- frame from First World War footage. Water-colour and montage of poppies by M). Text © Mirino (PW) June, 2009

Consequences. Iran

The pre-Islamic Persians of Aryan language founded two empires in the south-west of Iran, the Achaemenid VI-IV BC and the Sassanid (III-VII AD). They imposed their culture throughout much of the Middle East.

From the beginning of the first decade of mediaeval history, Persia was perhaps the most important cultural centre in the world. The Persians were among the first to translate the medical wisdom of the Greeks. And if one was then fortunate enough to have studied medicine in Persia (Christians weren't admitted) one would certainly not have been considered a charlatan. Islam then required a high standard of knowledge in several other sciences, in order to specialise in only one of them.

If levels of Persian knowledge of sciences were destined to reach a limit however, this, ironically, would be due to the rigours and exigencies of the same religion that allowed the initial acquiring of such knowledge.

The name 'Persia' (Latinised from the Greek Persica or Persis originating from 'Pārsa', the people of Cyrus the Great's empire) was to last until 1935 when Reza Shar Pahlavi issued a decree to rename the country 'Iran'. This caused a serious conflict of opinions as the Persian intelligentsia suspected there were connotations (Land of Aryans) with nazism. (Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, Economics Minister of Nazi Germany had also alluded to the Aryan origin of Persians).
'Persia' is far more evocative of the larger, cultural aspect than 'Iran' which seems to evoke more of an insular, autocratic and political one.

Persia is the land of one of the world's most ancient civilisations (from 7000 BC) and was to become a major influence in literature, art, philosophy, medicine, alchemy, astronomy and mathematics. During the reign of Cyrus the Great (pre-Islamic Persian Empire) what is sometimes alleged to be the first 'human rights charter' was established in the form of The Cyrus Cylinder (British Museum). It is perhaps more accurately regarded as ancient Mesopotamian propaganda proclaiming Cyrus to be 'King of the world'.

The history of Persia is obviously vast. A long sequence of wars, conquests, dynasties, rebellions with intermittent periods of anarchy, and even more so after the Islamic conquest of Persia. But the Persians were never 'arabised'. They enriched their culture with Arabian influence but they always essentially retained it as well as their own language. This paved the way to the 'Islamic Golden Age' which shined gloriously throughout the 10th and 11th centuries.

One of the most terrible events was the invasion of Genghis Khan in 1218. Half of the population of Iran was massacred. Pyramids of severed heads of men, women and children were carefully built and were cynically surrounded with the carcasses of dogs and cats. 90% of a population of 2,500,000 perished between 1220 and 1260 due to continued extermination followed by famine.
Two hundred years later 30% of the surviving population was decimated by the Black Death.

Yet Persian empires rose again and the first Islamic Shi'a State was established during the Sfavid Dynasty (1501 / 1722) by Shah Ismail I. Although this Dynasty often warred with the Ottomans, the Uzbeks and the Portuguese Empire, it was nonetheless a great patron of Persian arts.
Other, ambitious dynasties followed, and despite several wars with Imperial Russia in the 18th century (Qajar Dynasty) which resulted in the cession of almost half of Persian territory to Imperial Russia and to the British Empire, then the Great Famine of 1870-71 which caused the death of an estimated two million people, Iran always retained her sovereignty and was never colonised.

The Qajar Dynasty was overthrown by Reza Khan in 1925. He industrialised Iran, constructed a railway system and established a national education program. But his position regarding Germany at the beginning of World War II worried Russia and Britain. In 1941 they invaded Iran, also in order to use the Iranian railway in the war effort. The Shah then had to abdicate in favour of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

The elected Prime Minister of 1951, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, nationalised the oil reserves of Iran. This made him enormously popular in Iran but less so elsewhere. Britain reacted by embargoing Iranian oil and plotted with the USA under President Eisenhower to depose Mossadegh. 'Operation Ajax' was to prove 'successful'. Mossadegh was arrested in 1953.

The Shah Pahlavi had the support he needed from the USA to modernise Iran's infrastructure, but his regime became overly autocratic. Any political opposition was systematically crushed.

These were the seeds of circumstances that grew into the radicalisation of Iran, the flames of which were also fanned by Ayotollah Khomeini. The Iranian (or Islamic) Revolution began in January 1978 when Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile. It marked the end of the Pahlavi Dynasty ten days later when rebels overpowered the Shah's troops. The Shah and his family fled.
On the 1st April, 1979, overwhelmingly approved by national referendum, Iran became an Islamic Republic.

Abolhasan Bani-Sadr was elected the first president of the Islam republic of Iran in January 1980, and represented a degree of moderation and hope. But he too fled to France after being dismissed from office and charged with conspiracy and treason.

Unsuccessfully Saddam Hussein tried to gain access to the Persian Gulf in September 1980 (Iran-Iraq war). Iranian casualties were estimated roughly between 500,000 and a million. More than 100,000 deaths were directly caused by Iraqi chemical weapons.

Although there then followed the relatively moderate regime of Khatami who advocated freedom of expression, the revolutionary ideology was to become even more extreme, if not vindictive, under the actual regime presided by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In addition to Ahmadinejad's disdain of Israel, his open threats to the Jewish State, the regime's hostility towards the USA, its open support of terrorist activities (including those of the Hezbollah, Hamas and even the Taliban) and its political exploitation of obselete Sharia law; its continued denial that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear arms, only increases international distrust and preoccupation regarding the regime's purpose of developing them.

Such are the consequences. But in spite of what could be considered short-sighted, imperialistic irresponsibility on the part of Britain, Russia and the USA, and whatever one's religion and political sympathy, such a conclusion amounts to a sad and regressive result for Iran, in relation to the more grandiose periods in the history of Persia.

_____

Sources- Encyclopaedia Britannica, Le Larousse, Wikipedia, infoplease. Satellite image by courtesy of Nasa.

Text © Mirino (PW) June, 2009

A May Daydream

Is life not a dream?
Our ambitions, aspirations, expectations and illusions. Like those of prophets with their predictions and promises. Or the obsessions of fanatics. Our vanity, perhaps without which, ironically, we would be unable to reach the stars.
To be able to imagine, to create, to immortalise, we may have to reach down to the depths of our souls to find the magic ingredients necessary, the resources of strength and confidence, like those of gods.

But let us just close our eyes and softly slip into the far less demanding realm of dreams.

Kant wrote that 'the lunatic is a wakeful dreamer'. Perhaps then our sleeping dreams are the necessary opposition to our wakeful realities, if 'wakeful realities' aren't life's dreams..
Our minds then are in constant activity day and night, in dreams and reality, but the mental activity between the two periods may have a polaric difference and function. The 'illogic' compensates the 'logic', or visa versa. Unfathomable realities are brought to the limpid shallows of unreal clarity (clarity that is wonderful, admirable and incomprehensible..).

Many theories have been advanced throughout the history of civilisation, and more recently of course by Freud, Jung and other psychoanalysts and philosophers about dreams, their function and how to interpret them. But considering the vastness of differences between individuals and their personal experiences, whether one can generalise theoretically, regarding this aspect of human nature, would be another question.

There is also the weird phenomenon of 'déjà vu' when one arrives somewhere for the first time to suddenly realise with certainty, because of a feeling or certain details, of having been there before, in a dream. Or the strange experience of hearing something, for example in a conversation, and being acutely aware of having heard it, in tonality, time and space, precisely as it is, in a previous dream.
There are also the 'premonitive dreams' that warn one in advance of dangers destined to happen in the near future. As I have experienced this personally, I'm convinced of their authenticity.

It's said that during one's life-span, the total period one spends dreaming amounts to about six years. Approximately two hours a night of dreams or nightmares, of quasi 'irrational bliss' or quasi 'rational horror'.

But poetically I tend to think that life itself is an ephemeral, precious, and wonderful dream. And one would wish this for everyone to experience and appreciate.
Here in our fragile world there are still countless mysteries to discover and marvel at, including those that pertain to ourselves, our dreams and realities.

One imagines oneself slipping into the calm of clear sea water, warmed by the sun, and swimming discretely with the incredibly beautiful fish in this lush, still unspoilt, marine paradise. How can such sublime instants of reality that we are still so fortunately blest with, not be fabulous dreams?

____

Italiano

Text and Image (illustration from 'Alphonso's Dream') © Mirino (PW) May, 2009

Le Rat retraité

 

  The old rat has retired
Weary of the race
Scampering in sewers
Keeping up the pace.

Once he was dashing,
Venturous and bold
And many he sired
Before he grew old.

  But time may grant wisdom.
It never comes late
If one's teeth and whiskers
Are still growing straight.

And so he retired
To a country farm
By a peaceful quagmire
In seclusion and calm.

And there, on balmy days
When the time is ripe,
One might well catch a whiff
From the old rat's pipe.

 *

Le vieux rat s'est retiré
Bien las de la course
Détalant aux égouts
S'épuisant toutes ses forces

Autres fois il fut brave
Bien beau et vigoureux,
Et beaucoup il engendra
Avant qu'il fût vieux

Si le temps accorde la sagesse
Jamais trop tard vient-elle
Si les dents et les moustaches
 Poussent toujours droits et bien belles.

Il a pris donc sa retraite
Au pays doux et charmant
Par un marécage tranquille,
Tout seul et content.

Et là, aux jours embaumés
 Lorsque le temps est bien mûr,
La bouffée forte que l'on sent
Vient de sa pipe, bien sûr.
 __

Comme rat, il n'est pas encore qualifié de traiter du sujet de la retraite, et peut-être il ne le sera jamais, car si on a la chance d'avoir pratiqué une vocation, on la vit jusqu'au bout. Les sous sont toujours nécessaires, et les bienvenus, évidemment, mais ils ne prennent jamais la priorité lorsqu'on aime ce que l'on fait, le défend avec intégrité, et le fait avec amour.

D'ailleurs il y a des malheureux qui semblent avoir déjà pris leur retraite, au sens classique, à 30 ans. Le comble de leurs aspirations repose sur le principe banal (et sans âge) de faire le minimum pour gagner le maximum. De plus ils sont toujours convaincus d'être honteusement exploités. Et si une crise leur fait perdre leur travail, c'est encore la faute du patron et du gouvernement. C'est donc à eux de régler le problème sur le champ. Bref, on peut ainsi vivre- si on peut la considérer comme telle- toute une vie sans jamais assumer la responsabilité en tant qu'être humain, avec la volonté naturelle d'accomplir quelque chose de bien pour la postérité, ou pour faire valoir ce cadeau unique, précieux, extraordinaire mais seulement prêté, qui est justement la vie.

Le mot 'retraite' donc n'a pas la même connotation qu'il avait au siècle dernier. Nous bénéficions d'une longévité de plus en plus importante, à condition, bien-sûr, d'être en bonne santé. Il ne s'agit plus de mettre le vieux cheval au pâturage pour ses derniers jours, il s'agit plutôt d'une liberté nouvelle ou retrouvée.

Cette liberté est d'autant plus difficile à croire, si jusqu'à là on s'est battu des années sans cesse pour arriver à accomplir quelque chose de valable, et ceci sans jamais savoir si, après le dernier job, on aura la bonne fortune d'en avoir un autre (aussi acceptable) pour pouvoir alors payer les factures pour les mois suivants.

Ce serait donc le luxe, du jamais vu, d'avoir des sous qui tombent du ciel régulièrement pour que l'on puisse faire comme bon nous semble. De pouvoir travailler lorsque les idées et l'inspiration viennent, ou de pouvoir partir en voyages pour faire des nouvelles découvertes dans ce monde merveilleux. De pouvoir se consacrer entièrement sur les projets sans plus être tracassé par les mornes considérations financières, pourvu que l'on ait assez pour vivre. C'est une nouveauté extraordinaire.

Alors 'retraite', non. Il y a certains dont la vie ne changera que pour le meilleur, car ils seront enfin libres- dans les bornes des possibilités- de pouvoir continuer à évoluer sans ce casse tête financier. Ce sont les rats fortunés dont l'âme ne vieillit jamais. Ils ne sont donc jamais vraiment à la 'retraite'.

Comme les étudiants ils reçoivent une bourse pour pouvoir continuer leurs études jusqu'au bout, et préférablement, bien entendu, au lauréat suprême, céleste et d'autant magique.

__

Text and Image © Mirino (PW) May, 2009

Turkey, a bridge between cultures

'The religion of Islam will be elevated if it will cease to be a political instrument, as has been the case in the past.' - Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. 

If the world were an enormous jigsaw puzzle, certain pieces would have more important, strategic linking roles than others. Turkey, bordered by eight countries, would certainly represent one of these.
Linked to Europe (Bulgaria) via the Bosporus Strait, Turkey could be regarded as the bridge between two major cultures, the difference of which seems as radical today as ever.

It's plausible to believe that the history of Turkey, throughout the Ottoman Empire epic, would generally qualify the nation in management of coexistence between peoples of varied ethnicity, despite what could be one or two exceptions.
The Empire lasted an incredible 600 years, from 1299 until 1923, and at its peak it spanned three continents, (South-eastern Europe, the Middle-East and North Africa) 29 provinces, numerous vassal states and certain islands. The Ottoman Empire of which the capital was to be Constantinople (Istanbul) was therefore the governing centre between eastern and western worlds for six centuries, and could be considered the Muslim successor of the Byzantine Empire.

'Ottoman' derives from 'Osman'. Osman I (1258-1326) was a Ghazi emirate pioneer responsible for extending the Ottoman frontiers. Many legends have been written in honour of this much admired, brave warrior and ruler.

When Constantinople was conquered by the Ottomans in 1453, the Empire's power in south-eastern Europe and eastern Mediterranean was fully established. Its formidable naval force also greatly contributed towards further expansion and trade control. This was reason enough for Columbus to attempt reaching Asia by sailing West, to avoid passing through the dangerous waters controlled by the Ottoman Muslims.

The history of the Ottoman Empire is intricately vast. It's fall was partly caused by the breakdown of centralised government, the rise of European powers, regression of what were renowned institutions due to intransigent conservatism, and the general increase in the natural need and desire of former States and provinces to establish and express their own ethnical and national identity.

In 1914 the Ottoman Empire allied with Germany which also led to its downfall. In 1915 the fear that the ethnical Armenians of the Empire would take advantage of the war and create a fifth column, led to the arrest of their leaders and mass deportation and execution. An estimated 1.5 million Armenians died in what is recorded as 'the Armenian genocide'.
After the First World War the allied powers attempted to reduce the remainder of the Empire with the Treaty of Sèvres.

But Turkey was to be extraordinarily modernised by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (1881-1938). He successfully led the Turkish national movement against allied forces thus establishing the independence of Turkey, and on the 29th October, 1923 this man of rare spirit and great providence became the first president of the National Assembly of the peoples Republican Party, and supreme commander of the Turkish forces. It was the first time in the history of a Muslim State that a laic, republican regime was adopted.

In view of the relatively recent resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism, Atatürk's reforms of the twenties and thirties, listed below, seem even more boldly revolutionary today than perhaps they were considered at the time they were adopted. Indeed the present Muslim world would categorically reject such reforms today.

Perhaps such a brief outline of the history of the Ottoman Empire might serve sufficiently as a rough 'backcloth' to highlight the importance of Turkey, not just as a mere member state of Europe, but as a leading nation, historically qualified and strategically situated to assume a major responsibility as part of an eastern Mediterranean, if not eastern and southern Mediterranean alliance. Assuming the idea of this alliance will be adopted by all the countries concerned, Turkey, also a powerful member of NATO, should have a leading role.

The importance of the idea of a Mediterranean alliance is considerable. It could contribute towards the balance of powers of this vulnerable part of the world and be a moderating influence with its own constitution. It could represent a guaranty of sovereignty and security to much smaller States such as the Lebanon. With the arbitrage of Egypt and Lebanon it could persuasively contribute to help solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem. It could counter religious fundamentalism and be an additional safeguard against this common threat.

Geographically, Turkey can hardly be considered a part of Europe, and European membership could impede the nation from assuming a more significant role. It could create complications regarding the neighbouring southern and south-eastern countries of Syria, Iraq and Iran, and possibly by extension, an additional security problem for Europe.

In spite of the admirable, farsighted reforms of Atatürk, the history and culture of Turkey have naturally delayed the development of its democracy in relation to that of western countries.
What might be regarded as a daunting shadow of the Ottoman influence still seems to wield an uncompromising sword regarding issues such as the problem of the Kurds, whose claims are not unreasonable in terms of democracy. And democracy also requires a modern nation to confront its less honourable past with integrity, in order for it to advance in the same way. But then one wonders how many nations can pretend that there's no possibility that such a suggestion could still apply to them?

__

Turkish reforms under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

1922.

Abolition of the Sultanate. (Sovereignty belongs to the people, without reserve or conditions).

1924.

Abolition of the Caliphate.

Reform of head dress. The wearing of the fez is prohibited for men. The wearing of the veil is prohibited for women.

1926.

Ancient Koranic law is replaced by the Swiss civil code, the French criminal code, the Italian penal code and the German code of commerce.

Equality of the sexes is proclaimed. Polygamy and repudiation are prohibited. Marriage and civil divorce are recognised.

The Gregorian calendar (occidental) replaces the Muslim calendar.

Vast economical and agricultural reforms are introduced.

1928.

Islam is retracted from the State constitution to separate the influence of religion from political, social and cultural affairs.

Reform of the language. Arab manuscript is replaced by the Latin alphabet, which greatly contributes towards correcting analphabetism (formerly at 90%). General moderisation of education.

1932.

Creation of a Turkish linguistic society.

1934.

Women have the right to vote. (In the 1935 elections 17 women become parliamentary deputies).

1935.

Sunday replaces Friday as the day of rest. The law is past that Friday is the day of prayer but no longer the day of rest.

1937.

All Turks must take a family name. (Until then one was addressed by one's first name followed by that of one's father).

__

Sources: planet-turquie-guide and Wikipedia. Satelite image, with grateful thanks to NASA.
Text © Mirino (PW) April, 2009

Une Crise Capitale

Adam Smith- 'Capitals are increased by parsimony, and diminished by prodigality and misconduct'. (The Wealth of Nations, Book II, Chapter III).

L'initiative individuelle et la concurrence du marché libre entre les entrepreneurs est le fondement du capitalisme occidental. Ce mot qui suscite souvent la polémique évoque davantage le manque de confiance pendant les crises économiques, mais c'est un système aussi vieux que l'homme, et d'ailleurs partie instinctive de sa nature.
Prétendre que l'on puisse vivre sans un tel système serait en somme renoncer à la démocratie. Mais même sans démocratie, il faudrait toujours un système capitaliste, donc celui de l'Etat prendrait automatiquement la relève.

L'histoire nous enseigne que cette dernière forme qui avait commencé de manière plutôt utopique, ne fonctionne qu'à court terme, car empêcher l'individu de prendre ses propres initiatives selon ses capacités, veut dire fondamentalement l'étouffer. C'est donc freiner la naturelle évolution sociale et économique d'un peuple.
L'Etat ne peut jamais assumer le rôle de l'individu, malgré toutes les théories ou prétentions les plus avancées.

D'ailleurs le célèbre économiste écossais, Adam Smith, (1723-1790) croyait que lorsque un individu poursuit son intérêt personnel, il favorise le bien de la société plus que lorsque son premier objectif est de faire bénéficier la société.
'Ce n'est pas grâce à la bienveillance du boucher, du brasseur ou du boulanger que nous obtenions notre dîner, mais grâce à l'égard qu'ils apportent à leurs propres intérêts...'

Il va sans dire que si on ôte aux boulangers l'incitation de faire du bon pain, et encore meilleur que ceux de leurs voisins, ce ne serait pas dans l'intérêt de la société.
Il est aussi évident que pendant les années de capitalisme de l'Etat de l'USSR , il n'y avait jamais un grand enthousiasme occidental pour les voitures fabriquées, sans jamais être sérieusement assujetties à la concurrence mondiale, en Russie.

Même à son époque, Adam Smith était aussi bien informé des méfaits du capitalisme extrême. Il était contre le monopole, l'esclavage, le colonialisme, l'impérialisme et toutes formes d'exploitation injuste. Il estimait que le plus modeste travailleur ne devrait pas être considéré 'intellectuellement inférieur à un philosophe'. Et quand une entreprise est bien gérée, le respect réciproque règne, et personne ne se sent inférieure à personne.

Le traitement impersonnel, l'abus et l'exploitation commencent lorsque les entreprises deviennent des monopoles, des machines multinationales, de même que ces maux commencent dans un système étatique également énorme car le phénomène est pareil. On s'est rappelé alors des livres '1984' et 'La ferme des animaux' d'Orwell, car à la fin il n'y a pas grande différence entre le traitement dicté par le totalitarisme du capitalisme étatique et celui dicté par le capitalisme multinational. Ces deux extrêmes du capitalisme sont donc condamnés à terme malgré leurs façades toujours grandioses et imposantes.

Nous avons vu les petites maisons d'édition mangées par les plus grandes et ces plus grandes remangées à leur tour, enfin à l'avantage de personne et encore moins aux résultats publiés, jusqu'au point de leur propre éclatement d'indigestion chronique, laissant un dernier sillage triste et dégoûtante de médiocrité impersonnelle.
Un problème semblable existe chez les fabricants géants américains de voitures, qui pour leurs vieux clients fidèles, eux aussi peut-être inconscients du monde changeant, continuent à produire des marques quasi obsolètes plutôt par habitude que par conviction.

Il y a aussi le problème européen des hausses de prix, criard après le passage à l'euro et rendu encore pire par ce qui parait être un acharnement déraisonné de la BCE de ne céder un centime de sa valeur trop élevée, perpétuant toujours la disparité monétaire mondiale. Car avec le temps il est naturel, du moins en France, de traiter l'euro comme s'il s'agit du franc. On oublie vite que si on achète une baguette pour un euro aujourd'hui, pour le même montant on aurait pu en acheter plus que huit il y a seulement huit ans.

Il y a aussi la dérive des banques plus occupées par leurs affaires et les bonus hors de proportion des patrons pour condescendre à veiller mieux sur les intérêts de la majorité de leurs clients avec la même attention accordée il y a 20 ans.

Tout ceci représente une dérive du capitalisme donc condamnée à terme, simplement parce que les dirigeants n'assument pas leurs responsabilités, ou ils ont oublié leurs vrais objectifs, leur cause et leur raison d'être.
Le premier devoir des banques, y compris la BCE, est évidemment envers leurs clients, envers ceux qu'elles sont censées représenter et non aux affaires du monde extérieur. Voici les patrons qui ternissent le mot 'capitalisme', car les bons patrons existent et ont toujours existé.

Mais la crise n'est pas uniquement à cause des mauvais patrons. On a tous une part de responsabilité.

J'ai trouvé quelques lignes très intéressantes dans 'Les Carnets de guerre 1914-1918' d'Edouard Cœurdevey. Il avait rencontré un grand fermier intelligent à Brasseurs, qui, après son père, a su monté une ferme moderne et immense. Il parlait de la difficulté de main d'œuvre: 'Pour nos ouvriers agricoles, le patron c'est l'ennemi' (...) 'Leur manque de dévouement, leur paresse, leur jalousie, le peu de rendement qu'ils fournissent' (...) 'Ils se gardent bien de se faire tuer, eux, que le patron soit français ou boche, cela leur importe peu, ils seront toujours, croient-ils, les exploités'. Puis la page suivante- 'Il y a une réaction déjà commencée contre les billevesées socialistes. C'est par la coopération des patrons et des ouvriers que l'on se sauvera. Il faut les intéresser au succès de l'entreprise, leur donner leur part de bénéfices. J'oriente mon jeune fils vers cela'...

Voici donc ce que témoigne Edouard Cœurdevey au mois de juillet 1915. Le même dilemme, aussi vieux que le monde. Les mêmes vieux préjudices perpétués, sinon par quelques cas de mauvais patronage, certainement par les socialistes. Car gérer mal une entreprise n'est jamais une fatalité, mais c'est un défaut isolé grave qui va à l'encontre des intérêts de tous, et sera la cause éventuelle de sa propre faillite.

Ce n'est donc pas le système du capitalisme qui est en cause, mais l'abus du système ou l'incompétence de ceux censés le gérer.

Si personne n'a anticipé l'ampleur de cette crise, personne n'en a été assez conscient du mal latent.
Peut-être l'unique fatalité serait alors la faiblesse ou la cupidité de l'homme. Ce sont elles qui font perpétuer les mêmes vieilles erreurs, comme si rien ne change ou comme si on n'apprend jamais assez de l'histoire.

___

Italiano

Text and image © Mirino (PW) April, 2009