The disastrous state of the French economy can only be understood by analyzing the decisions made over the decades. Since the 1970s, every government without exception has led France into an increasingly deep rut. So much so that the country is now one of the worst performers on the continent and is finding itself increasingly downgraded on the international stage. In this sad state of affairs, where resignation seems inevitable, it is imperative to revive the voices of those who brought France to the top. Of the most recent figures, General de Gaulle remains the great symbolic figure.
In 1959, France, like its neighbors, was in the midst of reconstruction. As Europe rose from the ashes, the potential for growth was very high. The choice of a social and liberal policy, favoring workers and the most vulnerable, focused on reducing unemployment, industrial production, and investment, was facilitated by history.
However, Charles de Gaulle’s determination transcended any sense of temporality. It was part of a long-term, historical perspective of maintaining France as an autonomous power. The General’s sole obsession had always been the independence and interests of the country, in line with the National Council of the Resistance.It was through the writings of Simone Weil and L’Enracinement (The Need for Roots), a text commissioned by de Gaulle himself and intended to present the possibilities for the country’s recovery after the Liberation, that the General reinforced his ideas. However, the ideology of rootedness, defined by Weil as the deepest need of the human soul, is represented politically by sovereignty and patriotism.
During his ten years as president, Charles de Gaulle embodied these values at every level: in his fight against the country’s debt, in his desire for autonomy from the financial markets, in monetary sovereignty, in the creation of a sovereign industrial policy, in his support for major French companies such as Renault, Alstom, Airbus, and EDF, in his military independence and independence from NATO, and even in his foreign policy… Contrary to current practices, he always based each of his decisions on his vision and ideas.
On the most important issues, he remained steadfast in his convictions until his resignation in 1969. A year earlier, at the Élysée Palace, he presented his critique of capitalism. According to him:
“Capitalism says: thanks to the profit that drives initiative, let’s create more and more wealth which, by being distributed through the free market, will ultimately raise the level of society as a whole. But here’s the thing! Ownership, management, and profits in capitalist enterprises belong only to capital. So those who do not possess it find themselves in a kind of state of alienation within the very activity to which they contribute. No, capitalism, from the human point of view, does not offer a satisfactory solution.“
Beyond the country, it was therefore humanity that was at stake. Alienation, the dispossession of oneself, could not be accepted by a supporter of rootedness. The dispossession of an entire country, of an entire economy, even less so. It was above all this dependence on an external system that was at the heart of his criticism.
However, after his resignation, successive governments went against this ideology. From a policy of independence and sovereignty, France rushed headlong into financial globalization, to the point of becoming dependent on foreign interests.
The country took on massive debt, joined the euro, abandoned all industrial policy against a backdrop of offshoring, allowed many of its large companies to fall under foreign control, and sacrificed its autonomy in its most strategic sectors.
Lacking a clear vision, France’s destiny was carried along by the dominant ideology, just as an individual without a course of action ends up conforming.
General de Gaulle, a second-time resistance fighter (but this time against an economic system), had nevertheless prepared his successors. As early as 1968, he proposed an alternative: that of participation. In his words:
“When people come together for a common economic purpose, such as running an industry, by contributing either the necessary capital, or leadership, management, and technical skills, or labor, they form a company, a company in which everyone has a stake in its performance and smooth operation, and a direct interest. This implies that each person should be allocated, by law, a share of what the business earns and what it invests in itself from its earnings. It also means that everyone should be sufficiently informed about the running of the company and should be able, through representatives freely appointed by them, to participate in the company and its boards in order to assert their interests, their points of view, and their proposals. […] This is the path we must follow.“
Rather than subjecting society to the law of the strongest, as imposed by capitalism, Charles de Gaulle wanted to establish an economic model based on participation and solidarity—for France as well as for the world. He believed in a system where profits and losses are shared, in contrast to what prevails today. A model that is not based on unlimited personal accumulation to the detriment of the collective, but on distributed enrichment, made possible by participation and productive investment. In this regard, he recalled that “capitalism is not acceptable in its social consequences. It crushes the most humble. It turns man into a wolf for man.”
Essentially, the General was defending a genuinely collectivist model that respected private property. A model capable of rebuilding ties between citizens rather than fragmenting them, at the risk of uprooting them… Because such a vision also guarantees, through economics, the sustainability of democracy as a system where power remains equitably distributed. Today, as wealth concentration and inequality reach new heights, and the French economy – along with democracy – is going through one of the most serious crises in its history, the need for a new “de Gaulle moment” seems more urgent than ever, this time before the worst happens.