96
PARTISAN REVIEW
that it is the most powerful groups in monopolies sheltered from in–
ternational competition which are always served first because of
their enormous nuisance value. Those who would deserve special
privileges because of their hard jobs never have sufficient clout to ob–
tain them . The strike has thus become the arm of the strong and no
longer of the weak. The second group are , in Albert's terms, the "old
males" who, as the central class of workers, are largely indifferent to
the plight of unemployment which falls mainly on the young, on
women, and on the untrained. These "old males" are over–
represented in all political and social organizations, while the
unemployed have no voice.
It
is the "old males" who have largely op–
posed the widespread use of part-time work in more flexible work
structures, a solution which is most promising in the battle against
unemployment . The third enemy is not a group but a prevalent no–
tion, namely that of an egalitarian public service system and welfare
state whose redistributions are in effect most unegalitarian, since
they benefit most those who are already better off (who use more
medicines, have more education, go to subsidized cultural events
and generally milk the state) .
The critique of the French welfare state marks a major turning
point away from a postwar social consensus which bridged both the
Left and the Right. In seeing the welfare state as the result of a
"bureaucratic accumulation" of postwar economic exceptionalism,
Minc argues in tones which are somewhat reminiscent of the
American neoconservatives. He feels that Frenchmen should
become more individually responsible for their social expenses . All
should be guaranteed against major medical risks, but beyond this
threshold each should pay the effective cost of his coverage as a func–
tion of his real needs. In other words, there will no longer be a collec–
tive administrative "mother" who in the end will solve all problems .
Society is increasingly perceived as a working whole, all of whose
parts have their legitimate needs and rights, whether industrialists,
workers, middle classes, functionaries , or the unemployed. The old
notion of capitalists against
travailleurs
is melting under the thrust of
economic reality and social pragmatism. As Closets says, the time
has come to put an end to the myth of
un angelisme syndicalo-ouvrieriste.
These views reflect the inherent liberalism which underlies the
economic analyses of all three authors. French social policy must
change, because it is no longer in tune with economic reality. The
state should not protect all equally, and society as a whole must
adapt to meet an era of economic no-growth in which it is no longer
