After World War II , with all of the countries involved, there was a quest for economic and political protection. For the United states, they exemplified a more imperialistic way of creating partnerships and alliances. Meanwhile, countries like France and Great Britain were looking for alliances in unifications to keep their own economy from collapsing or becoming too dependent on foreign powers. Regardless of resistance to stronger imperialistic powers, after WWII the economic state was bound to change. With political movements and policies such as the Marshall Plan, the U.S.’s financial aid could only influence regulations of the economy or Europe, even if some contemporaries, like Alexandre Kojève, warned against guaranteed dependency.
As the war ended, the U.S. adopted an imperialistic policy. Like referenced in the image above, the U.S. felt compelled to help the newly destroyed countries “increase their standards of living”. This was a way of rationalizing their imperialistic motives while giving the people of the U.S. something to believe in. However, without this influence, the world’s modern economy would not exist. This economic transition to the American standard was not easy. The citizens and policies of the pre-war economy were present and the average consumers were known as ” the children of Marx and Coca Cola” ( De Grazia 343). Europe had a different market than the U.S. The european consumer was influenced by their religious and political subcultures that rested on egalitarian values. While in the U.S. ,the consumer market essentially influenced policy and the consumer right was seen as the most authentic right. The collapse of the solid economic systems in European countries left room for the imperialism of the U.S.. and a loss individual state identity.
Alexandre Kojève warned about this loss of political and economic identity in France. The changes that occur from aid, influences of a mass market and, the influx of new service strengthened the reliance of goods from the U.S. This reliance opened doors to more capitalistic ideals and formulated a new concept in Europe that the consumer held all of the power thus the individual markets swayed political policy. These policies often favored the policies of the U.S. and France’s autonomy slowly bent to American authority.
Kojève felt that France did not have to be at the mercy of the Americans. France was slowly bending and in its vulnerable state after the war, with out conscience effort, they would be consumed by this new consumer movement and unable to have independent economic long-term sustainability. Instead, Kojève suggested the coalition of the “Latin Empire”. This coalition would be based on the natural likeness of Western European countries. Kojève argues, “The “kinship” of nations is, above all, a kinship of language, of civilization, of general “mentality,” or, – as is sometimes also said – of “climate.” And this spiritual kinship is also manifested, among other things, through the identity of religion” (Kojève 17). This alliance would be strong enough to withstand changing economic eras but also would not change too much of the culture or dynamics of the state. In fact, the dynamics would be “realized by an elite and supported by the whole of the population, [which] can succeed only if it has an adequate economic foundation”(Kojève 35). Kojève wanted to express France’s rightful return to its norms and social dynamic that would only be possible with France’s own social stability and the rejection of a complete capitalistic society that is also protected by a coalition of other states.
Image:
https://rampages.us/chapmancaroline/2016/04/28/sponsored-by-materialism-and-individualism-the-american-dream-in-advertising-since-the-
