Many people say the economy is on the process to be in crisis. In my opinion it may be necessary to interrogate why we suffer so many crisis while the great Chinese rival of the western world didn’t really suffer any for 40 years. It looks that, for years, economists predict a great amount of crisis and nightmares for the Chinese economy which is not happening. On the other side we look to suffer from this big issue.
China developed itself as Germany did in the XIXth century. It has been accused of, like today, stealing intellectual property of many British products. At the same time Birmarck put in place an equivalent of social security. Germany was at that time an authoritarian state, but had more social protections that the British had. To the same extend, there was an equilibrium between a state building in the long run and a relative freedom given to companies. It looks the same for China today.
The economist Michel Aglietta, contrary to the mainstream opinion, is saying that the maoist forced industrialization played an important role in the long run development of China. However many say that it is Deng Xiaoping who “awoke” this country. But we can consider that no major crisis emerged from this country during 40 years. Of course there is the Evergrande case, Chinese companies have on average a great deal of debt, and there great tensions in prospect due to demography, as often the youngsters will have to take their families in charge (many Chinese are too old to be rich enough). However the Chinese state has an extraordinary amount of reserve, as well as a great deal of savings from particulars the Government can mobilize at any moment. To this extend their position is in many ways ideal to confront the western world in the technological competitions of the future.
What happened after the XXth Communist Party congress is revealing to this extend. It looks that Xi Jinping tried to go back to the basics of Marxism. In a way he respected it better than Lenin did, as for Marx capitalism is necessary to lead to communism. But the rebellion of Chinese people, which is more linked to the “implicit contract” between the Chinese people and the Communist Party (authoritarism against prosperity) that a real fight for democracy in a western way. China today more a “classical” empire than a total totalitarian state.
Concerning the West, major investment plans have been made in the United States. Europe looks to suffer a real lack of strategy. To some extend it could be good to inspire from Chinese initiatives : creating giant companies, investing a lot more in education to rebuild a real middle class, investing in the industries and technologies of the futures rather than thinking about relocating companies. It is terrible that the dominant company in rare metals, Alcatel, was abandoned. Of course it is necessary to promote a sustainable economy ; but not to the extend to abandon to the Chinese communist party the control of detrimental materials from the innovations of the future.
To this extend Europe is in a worrying situation. We risk to depend a lot of other actors. Of course it is necessary not to put the United States and China on the same level, and personally I would like to engage to my small scale to support the USA if there is a conflict in any way with China. But it is necessary to have a strong Europe which can weight and have an impact. Emmanuel Macron said very fairly, in a speech for the French army, that is was more necessary to prepare the future wars than intellectually winning the last one ; and it was one of the reasons why the French lost against the Nazis in the Second World War. That is the reason why Europe has to be, in my opinion, in a more ongoing process to build the future. It looks that this lack of approach can cost a lot in the long run.
The observer 