Non au néolibéralisme

by David VIckrey
0 comment 14 views

The neo-conservative pundits in the US are hailing the refusal of French voters to ratify the EU constitution as a victory for democracy:

IN THE FACE OF AN arrogant, out-of-touch, debate-stifling old regime, a whiff of democracy can be liberating.

Freedom is on the march – even in France!  Of course, any setback to Bush’s nemesis Chirac is celebrated.  But I tend to agree with Orson over at Diderot’s Lounge that there was a strong anti-American undercurrent to the vote.  The vote was in large measure a repudiation of the neo-liberal reform agenda that models itself on the United States:

The United States was the unspoken, invisible scarecrow in this
campaign and shall likely play that role in the domestic politics of
France and other European countries for many years to come.

This view was also confirmed by the anti-globalization activists in Germany:

"Das französische Nein ist eine klare
Botschaft: Die Menschen wollen ein sozialeres Europa und ein
Ende der neoliberalen Politik", sagte Heike Hänsel,
Sprecherin der bundesweiten Attac EU-AG.

The slow but steady dismantling of the European social market economy (Sozialmarktwirtschaft) is beginning to alarm many in Europe.  The US is a convenient scarecrow for the European press, since its economic system is viewed as the logical goal of the neoliberal reform agenda.  A recent report in the Berliner Zeitung on the collapse of the private pension system in the US can be seen as a warning about what might be in store for Germany in the future:

Offensichtlich wird die Misere oft erst im Bankrott. Kurz vor seiner
Pleite behauptete der Stahlgigant Bethlehem Steel zum Beispiel, sein
Pensionsfonds sei zu 84 Prozent gedeckt. Nach der Pleite stellte sich
heraus: Es waren nur 45 Prozent. In der Rentenkasse fehlten 4,3
Milliarden Dollar. Für solche Ausfälle kommt seit 1974 der
Rentengarantiefonds PBGC auf, der von den Firmen finanziert wird. Nun
droht der PBGC selbst die Pleite. Im Jahr 2001 erwirtschaftete sie noch
einen Überschuss von acht Milliarden Dollar. Doch eine Serie von
Zusammenbrüchen brachte ein Minus von 23,3 Milliarden Dollar 2004 – der
Fonds nimmt nur 1,5 Milliarden jährlich an Beiträgen ein.

Zwar
fordert PBGC von den Unternehmen, ihre Pensionsvermögen korrekter zu
bilanzieren und mehr Geld in ihre Rentenfonds zu zahlen. Dies jedoch
wird an der Wall Street gefürchtet. Denn dann "drücken diese Zahlungen
die Gewinne, die niedrigeren Gewinne führen zu sinkenden Aktienkursen
und das wiederum zu größeren Löchern in den Pensionskassen", sagt Nick
Barisheff, Fondsmanager bei Bullion Management.

Stories like this lead the economist Albrecht Mueller to ask: "Is this supposed to be the model for Germany?"

 

You may also like

0 comment

khr June 1, 2005 - 9:52 am

Here is a first poll analysing the various reasons for the French Yes and No voters:
http://www.ipsos.fr/canalipsos/poll/8074.asp
This does not support the neo-con view.
Via the Blog ‘A Fistful of Euros’
http://fistfulofeuros.net/archives/001431.php

Reply
Arthur June 1, 2005 - 3:25 pm

Non au Turkey 😉

Reply
Arthur June 1, 2005 - 3:27 pm

Nee for Immigrants in Netherland as well 😉

Reply
David June 1, 2005 - 4:49 pm

The polling data is interesting. The NON voters were generally more rural and less educated. The French equivalent to “Red Staters”?

Reply
Kuch June 1, 2005 - 10:41 pm

David
I thought the NO voters were mainly communists, socialist, troskeyites, and those whom are afraid of open markets (ie capitalism). I have read many excerpts from ‘non’ voters with professional backgrounds. It’s so easy to throw out that they voted the way that they did… because they are dumb. I am not French, or European for that matter, but I would have voted yes. But I also realize that there must be more to this issue than “the opposition is stupid.”

Reply
Arthur June 2, 2005 - 12:58 am

@Heike Hänsel,attac
If Europe – actually the election was in France – wants to stop neo-liberalism – why did Germany vote against left parties and in favour for more reforms?
Funny to see that left – even intelectuals – don’t want to get the entire message.

Reply
khr June 2, 2005 - 4:01 am

“why did Germany vote against left parties ?”
Because the “left” SPD and Green parties are implementing a neo-liberal program. It’s just slightly less radical than what CDU/FDP would do.
And it’s not so much that they vote for the CDU than that many SPD voters stay home. Also voters think state level elections are a good way to show displeasure with Berlin, and vote against the SPD.
Except for the PDS, there is no party that really argues against the neo-liberal agenda.

Reply
Arthur June 2, 2005 - 4:07 pm

Then why – even before Hart IV – the percentage of CDU voters being workers has been higher than that for SPD and – as well – the average income of a CDU voter has been lower than that of a SPD voter?
In addition: The average income of a green voter has jumped above that of an average Liberal democrat voter.
In case you want regime change but not the CDU, why is the radical left (PDS, WASG) so week? Please no more “They stood at home” arguments.”
Actually, there are explanations why the left lost the workers: Education. You can read this in TAZ. Stupid.
The better explanation is, that the left (post materialistic milieus) lost cultural connection to the classical left (worker).

Reply

Leave a Reply to Kuch Cancel Reply

Website Designed and Developed by Nabil Ahmad

Made with Love ❤️

©2004-2025 Dialog International. All Right Reserved.