Finally the third modality is adaptation

Between the case of the SCE managed on a Bonapartist mode and MP Jean Lassalle, which used thirty-one days of hunger strike to prevent the spread of a Japanese in another Valley plant, there is no point in common, otherwise these two events reflect the crisis of the system policy French globalisation, and its preference for heroism, against reformism.

The deeper problem, it is of course the future of work in a globalized world. The symbolic dimension, it is one of the forms of action internalized or valued by the French company. At the Summit of the State, it is political heroism draped gown of the public wants to impose defiance of all reality. Basically, the forms of heroism to sacrificial tone (Lassalle) or combative (Bove). In all three cases is present the will to change things by the symbol, the exemplary, sacrifice or force, as if to reform, needed to self-immolation.

However, the background as the form have a common point: they solve any substantive problem and devalue in addition any approach to reform.

Let's start with the bottom. It is the future of work in a globalized world. In it, the capital becomes mobile and immobile labour. The report between the two factors is therefore mechanically changed, as labour is more at all homogeneous. If capital is not favourable conditions for profitability, it moves. And it does much more easily that he has three outstanding advantages: the existence of a very strong demand in emerging countries, the existence in these same countries to low-wage endless potential, technological progress which allows more in more easily break down the chain of value across the world in optimal conditions. Globalization is therefore potentially rise to world labor, with no more need to be mobile, because it is capital coming towards him, where it is abundant.

It is a considerable mutation that certain figures expressed very eloquently. In 1980, the world labor was valued at about a billion people, including a third in developed countries. Twenty-five years later, the landscape has profoundly changed. Global labour reached the 3 billion, of which 500 million in developed countries, one billion in developing countries, a billion and a half in emerging countries such as the India, China and the Russia. This group of countries occupies a considerable place in this new dimension of the work because it combines two phenomenal strengths: an abundant work force a non-negligible fraction is qualified, or even very skilled. Globalization, this is the end of a world where qualified labour was the preserve of only rich countries. There is indeed a shock of the labour supply around the world that it is difficult to deny the existence. This problem can be exacerbated by the fact that the wage catch-up in emerging countries such as China can be blocked or slowed by a social repression of wages which would allow some areas have a productivity very strong but very low wages.

Simultaneously, the spectacular evolution of these figures must be relative by the fact that all those employees of the periphery will not go on the world market. As an economy develops, more non-tradable activities increase. Which means that service activities created in India or China will continue to mass to be used for the internal market way. Can probably never be ordered his pizza in Barcelona.

Moreover, even if the constraint is comprehensive, solutions remain largely local. This point deserves to be much martelé, because we live in a country which is a great temptation in our elites seek large solutions intended to overthrow the table across the world, contrary to the basic considerations. This criticism applies naturally to the anti-globalization, which dissertent on "the alternative to the capitalist system" so that at the periphery of the world, Chinese and Indians are less anxious to build a "another system" to maximize their position in the world as it is. Their goal is not to invent a new capitalism. It is to Tinker to their advantage real capitalism. But the criticism applies also to our rulers, and singularly thereof which, through the case of the SCE, revealed not only its profound ignorance of the causes of the problem of employment in France and the lack of consideration that he had for the social partners. The difficulty for the France is therefore to find a path between the myth of "another world" and the social bonapartism, two myths of indeed complementary, heirs of revolutionary tradition and revealed by semantic fascination with the "idea of rupture". However, contrary to what one thinks, the France will not engage in the way of a profound change, sustainable and socially not traumatic in breaking with the past. It will not do it by inventing new ways to do so are also available but not exploited traditions.

The first mode of action is the anticipation. Well seen in the textile sector. Countries who best anticipated the opening of the Chinese market were the Germany and the Scandinavian countries. More than bad, the Italy. Result: the first concerned over China and refuse any protectionism because, for them, Chinese products are inputs used in products with high added value. The second is a very difficult password that the Berlusconi Government has compounded by doing nothing, despite its false liberal proclamations.

The second modality is dialogue between all stakeholders. If, in a same region, the restructuring of Moulinex was catastrophic, while that of Philips has been successful, it is because the quality of the players made the difference.

Finally, the third modality is adaptation. Refuse the closure of a plant which wants to move to a neighboring Valley where its deployment is considered economically more favourable is an act of grave irresponsibility. See the expression of a mystical act in any act of immobility is sobering. Mr. Lassalle is not a resistant should praise the courage but an irresponsible elected which the action will lead to the closure of its term plant at Accous, in the Valley of Aspe, but a lack of confidence in legitimate Japanese to the France investors.

That, indeed, outside Mr. Lassalle, can understand that we can do a hunger strike to prevent the movement of a plant in sixty kilometres away, when, at the time of globalization, it is so easy to manufacture a product ten thousand kilometres from here