Si tout le monde avait leur humour…. Voici deux lettres, toutes deux authentiques (novembre 2004) L’une a été écrite par Soeur M., moniale visitandine à Nantes. La réponse est signée Bernard Thibault, secrétaire général de la CGT.

Lettre adressée par Soeur M. à la C.G.T.

« Madame, Monsieur Religieuse cloîtrée au monastère de la Visitation de Nantes, je suis sortie, cependant, le 19 juin, pour un examen médical. Vous organisiez une manifestation. Je tiens à vous féliciter pour l’esprit bon enfant qui y régnait. D’autant qu’un jeune membre de votre syndicat m’y a fait participer ! En effet, à mon insu, il a collé par derrière sur mon voile l’autocollant CGT après m’avoir fait signe par une légère tape dans le dos pour m’indiquer le chemin. C’est donc en faisant de la publicité pour votre manifestation que j’ai effectué mon trajet. La plaisanterie ne me fut révélée qu’à mon retour au monastère. En communauté, le soir, nous avons ri de bon coeur pour cette anecdote inédite dans les annales de la Visitation de Nantes. Je me suis permis de retraduire les initiales de votre syndicat (CGT = Christ, Gloire à Toi). Que voulez-vous, on ne se refait pas. Merci encore pour la joie partagée. Je prie pour vous. Au revoir, peut-être, à l’occasion d’une autre manifestation.

Soeur M. »

Réponse du secrétaire général de la C.G.T.

« Ma soeur, Je suis persuadé que notre jeune camarade, celui qui vous a indiqué le chemin, avait lu dans vos yeux l’humanité pure et joyeuse que nous avons retrouvée dans chacune des lignes de votre lettre. Sans nul doute il s’est agi d’un geste inspiré, avec la conviction que cette pointe d’humour ” bon enfant ” serait vécue comme l’expression d’une complicité éphémère et pourtant profonde. Je vous pardonne volontiers votre interprétation originale du sigle de notre confédération, car nous ne pouvons avoir que de la considération pour un charpentier qui a révolutionné le monde. Avec tous mes sentiments fraternels et chaleureux,

Bernard Thibault, Secrétaire général de la CGT »

Envoyé : jeudi 18 mars 2010 16:04

Dear Bob,

I have finished reading “Machiavelli and the Mayflower”. Not that it took me so long since our enjoyable lecture/lunch of Feb 16th - although the first five chapters leave no room to outside distraction - but I had other readings on the way such as “Quand la France disparaît du monde” by Nicolas Tenzer (Grasset & Fasquelle, 2008) on international expertise markets. In the course of my reading I jotted down a few reading notes that I may dare share with you, if you agree.

You venture in your footnote p.10 that analysing Burgundy harvests shows that 1793 marked the end of 30 coldest summers in French climatic history: “Had the summers been warm and the harvest plenty, would France still be a monarchy ?”. If I am well informed, dendrochronology shows that 1787 and 1788 had really bad wheat harvests, thus people had little bread (that you know is as important as wine to the French that had Marie-Antoinette voice her (in)famous: “If they can’t have bread, let them have brioche !”. Now why 1787 and 1788 ? One reason may be volcan Laki’s eruption in Iceland in 1783-84: it spewed 14 cubic kilometers of lava, an estimated 120 million tons of sulfur dioxide were emitted, produced a Volcanic winter, 1783, on the North Hemisphere (Wikipedia). No kidding.

I would like to understand the difference between: - the Romanist elliptic thought, expediency, complacency, that can be used to justify just about anything (p.27-28), - and puritanism (a word that you never use by the way). Aren’t both called hypocrisy in everyday language ? Is it why you use so frequently the adjective dysfunctional ?

You quote Engels p.81: “the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another”.

Dans Les Echos du 17.03.10 p.15 “Panique au guichet” Roger-Pol Droit cite Hegel et Max Weber: “Il fut un temps où la bureaucratie avait ses lettres de noblesse et ses justifications philosophiques (…) principes: rationalité, règles impersonnelles, compétence, etc”. N’y a-t-il pas là une autre catégorisation transversale BUR/PRV (bureaucratie vs entreprise privée), quel que soit le régime politique ou religieux ? Quand on sait qu’en France les fonctionnaires sont ~13% de la population active, plus le secteur public, et que les associations en représentent ~12%, c’est environ la moitié de la population française qui est BUR; d’autres pays d’Europe de l’Ouest en ont moins, mais les ex-pays de l’Est en ont certainement plus.

A belief in collectivism and the fear of heresy might appear to be parallel characteristics of Romanism and of Communism (p.38). Cela nous ramène à Staline: “Le Vatican ! Combien de divisions son armée a-t-elle ?”.

P.84. I love your “The French take to the streets for two reasons: firstly, Rousseau advised them to; secondly, popular discontent shown in the streets is a tolerated part of political feedback by the citizenry to its politicians (…) otherwise they lose votes, if no longer their heads !”

Quel terreau pour les nationalisations de 1946 concédées aux communistes du PC et de la CGT ! A l’inverse on observe de plus en plus l’émergence du riverain par rapport au citoyen, c.à.d. l’appropriation de l’espace public par le résident local. Contradictoire, isn’t it ?

Generally speaking I find more difference between ROM and REF than between MON and REP.

Je me suis intéressé à la Médiation, qu’elle soit institutionnelle ou indépendante, et je comprends mieux à présent pourquoi elle marche en milieu REF mais pas en ROM, indépendamment du contexte politique; pourquoi les pays dits “latins” font plus confiance au droit écrit appliqué par les tribunaux qu’au compromis librement élaboré par les parties. REFMON certainly explains the success of Anglo-Dutch ventures such as Shell or Unilever. Conversely, ROMREP vs REFMON explains why my “Travail vs Arbeit” sociologist cousin stated that the French and the Dutch are extreme opposites in Europe.

P.129: a cross-fertilized person becomes… a cultural ‘mongrel’ for his acquaintances, an object of interest rather than one of intimacy. Well said…

The subject of food is hardly ever broached but I think it ought to. Your categorization explains beautifully: • why in two neighbouring countries of similar size, Belgium and The Netherlands, food is so great in the former and inedible in the latter. Now, how come they became politically associated in the Benelux ? Beats me ! Unless they had tiny Luxembourg as the catalyst/icing on the pudding ? • why the story goes - joke or true? - that the intended merger between KLM and Alitalia failed some 12 years ago. They just couldn’t meet together: the Dutch had no appetite for long lunches that they thought were a waste of time, and the Italians felt that an eel sandwich with a glass of milk was an insult to their taste buds (so do I . • and l’Agence pour la Sécurité Alimentaire nearly moved from Parma to Helsinki Close call !

Now for a paradox, not mentioned either: are sports categorized ? Some (polo, golf) seem to be, whereas others (football, tennis somewhat) cross all barriers or distinctions. Isn’t that amazing ?

Enfin je vais vous soumettre une devinette: à quelle classification raccordez-vous l’échange épistolaire ci-joint ?

Pierre

Dear Pierre,

J’espère que vous ne me tiendrez pas rigueur si je passais toute de suite dans ma langue paternelle pour essayer de répondre aux points que vous avez si habillement identifiés dans votre mail.

• The data on the Burgundy harvests were established by Emanuel Le Roy Ladurie, and I used statistical software to analyse it; I have added a graph to show that 30-year blocks of data over the past 600 years clearly illustrate the mini ice age with its nadir around the volcanic winter of which you speak and leading up to 1789.

• I would not have placed elliptic thought, (which is an effort to rationalize contradictory dogma,) in the same bag as Puritanism, (which was an effort to bridge the gap between Calvinism and, I think, Methodism;) however, on the one hand good Christians try hard in good faith to live virtuous lives through such contradiction, and on the other hand, dysfunctional Romanism and dysfunctional Reformism illustrate the unfortunate outcome of trying to do so. Rather than calling Puritanism a dysfunctional outcome, I would choose bigotry, but if people can be dysfunctional in good faith, can we call them hypocrites? • BUR appears to me the child of REP as PRV appears the child of MON.

• Among the Vatican divisions, we might start with the Jesuits, or even the Order of Malta; this said, I am a practicing Roman Catholic with great respect for both organisations.

• In this time of regional elections I see why the Republic is more sensitive to its riverains: Plato seemed to think that Republics would never work because you couldn’t get logically all 60 million Frenchmen into the same debating chamber; I believe that he preferred aristocracy for this reason! I would have to hunt for the reference.

• Delighted to hear from you that more separates ROM from REF than MON from REP; I would normally have expected to hear the opposite in France as the extreme individualism of the MON seems so anathema to the REP.

• In the question of mediation: we should not forget the impact of Roman Law, and especially, of Napoleon’s Civil Code: the Civil Code is the reason why Napoleon as Emperor cannot be classed in my view as MON! No hereditary feudal monarch would have wanted to commit anything to writing that could impede his freedom of action in any way.

• I would be happy to learn more of your cousin’s Tavail/Arbeit argument; I happen to agree with his diagnosis. • Great remarks on food: thanks.

• We do have sporting class barriers in the UK: soccer is distinctly working class and rugby, middle upper class, with, progressing in order, golf, cricket, tennis, horse riding, Eton Fives, shooting and Polo.

• Finally, your superb letter shows very well the efficiency of the ROMREP state: united by Communism against individualism and by St Francis against money!

Kind wishes,

Bob