THOUGHTS OF OTHERS

In “Mon Village se Meurt”, by Mr. Gilles Normand, we can read the following:

"Fifty years ago, France was still a predominantly agricultural country, a country whose main wealth was the land and the work of the land, a country which fed itself and beyond, a country which, therefore, could quickly heal its wounds and repair its losses, which had indeed always repaired them very quickly after each of its great calamities, wars, invasions, revolutions, financial catastrophes.

In 1881, agricultural professions still employed 48 percent of the French population. In 1923, they only occupied 33 and a half percent. France, in 1881, therefore had a large peasant base.

Today, the proportions are reversed: 61 percent of the French population is monopolized by industry, commerce, civil service, liberal professions, railways, etc., that is to say that the number of French people who provide subsistence, drinking and eating for others has decreased while the number of those whose work is used to earn their food and not to produce it has increased.

From all points of view, this is an entirely new situation for France and a very serious one. It risks, in fact, changing not only the economic character, but the moral, social and political character of our country. Also certain regions see magnificent terroirs left fallow, put into woods...

From decrease to decrease, what result do we arrive at? This is because, in our depopulated countryside, and especially in certain regions which have lost a large part of their rural workforce, the entire administrative apparatus remains, as costly as ever. In the village of Mr. Gilles Normand, there were once seventy children at school. There are only ten left today. However, there is always a teacher, who is paid more. Same case for the post office, the station, etc.

We have, in our countryside, a staff which, in general, except in privileged regions, no longer responds to the density of the population, which burdens our finances with overhead costs, and which delays recovery. However, we cannot even think of reducing these overhead costs, because if our rural populations were also deprived of the few amenities they have, then desertion would worsen.

What this desertion itself is due to is what requires a whole study. However, we cannot avoid observing with Mr. Pierre Caziot that the eight-hour day has had and still has the effect of a suction pump on rural France. However, rural France was already terribly anemic by the war, because it had the most losses. The least that can be said of the government which proposed and the Parliament which blindly accepted the eight-hour day is that neither knew what they were doing.