Luiss Open: New emergencies, old problems. That's why the economic resilience of debtor countries isn't just a matter of accounting.
In a 1932 essay, Carl Schmitt proposed that an era of “economic imperialism” began at the end of World War I, leading to a paradigm shift. The conflicts of previous centuries, rooted in religion (Christian and non-Christian) or culture (civilized and uncivilized), would be replaced by a paradigm that was only superficially less “violent,” based on the divide between creditor and debtor states. At the time, Germany was among the debtor nations, “strangled” by the debts it owed to the war’s victorious powers. The latter were unyielding, and we know full well what happened: Weimar constitutionalism vanished, and the fire that ignited in the heart of Europe eventually erupted into World War II.
A few decades earlier, Max Weber had brilliantly explained the link between Calvinism and capitalism. According to him, the “spirit” of capitalism, which is based on reinvesting the fruits of one’s labor in new economic ventures, finds an ideal cultural breeding ground in Protestant ethics. On the one hand, this ethic sees worldly success as a sign of divine approval, and on the other, it therefore fundamentally rejects the Catholic notions of forgiveness and the absolution of sins.
When we consider these two theses together, a conceptual framework emerges that may help us better understand what is happening in the EU Council these days.