Part 1 – Institutions of life networks
We will begin in our first part by describing the functioning of social life networks, their institutions, and this right which is currently prohibited but which has been used successfully in our history.
We divide our time between moments spent in networks (family, friends, club, associations…) and others often more numerous today in systems of power in which the rules are defined by others than us and in which we must obey on pain of exclusion. After the school system, the religious systems and their dogmas, the generalization of the wage in the professional life increased the dependence on the economic system and its abuses, its crises. It’s undeniably the systems of power that are now dictating our living conditions and leaving us with more or less availability to achieve our more intimate moments of life in the networks that we’ve been able to develop. More and more often, the social success desired by the leaders of the economic systems requires the abandonment of our networks and, in terms of the values put forward in our economic system, work has become priority far ahead of love with all the negative consequences that this entails for a human being.
But this was not always the case in mankind. The most successful civilizations have been organized in networks, we will return to this widely. Hence the reason for the movement that we present to put forward the alternative of network organization in order to leave our systems of power and develop once again a flourishing civilization capable of responding to our reasons for living and capable of preserving life. In this choice of civilization, we will have demonstrated how the mechanism of social domination is set in motion by the confiscation of authority by the minority in a system of power, whether civil, religious, military and more or less democratic or, on the contrary, despotic and tyrannical.
In the liberal capitalist economic power system, the wealthiest minority controls the world economy through the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy. In its domination, it uses representative democracies and their electoral system, their tax system to develop its objectives and maximize its profits. Therefore, the oppositions, resistance, will to change all or part of the functioning of this system of liberal power have the choice between trying to change this system hoping to take power through the electoral game or deciding to abandon this system of liberal power and the other theocratic, military, tyrannical systems of power in order to develop again Networks of Social Life.
For centuries, representative democracies built and funded by the rich have not allowed resistance movements to develop that can change the way power works in the liberal system. Abandoning this liberal system therefore means using the alternative of network organizations to build a new civilization from the local and then confederal level. This solution is based on common sense, but it must be known, understood and implemented. We approach the development of Life Networks through a legal and institutional approach.
Our professor of Business Law, in the fourth year, before we left the Faculty had wanted to warn us: a good lawyer knows the positive law, the law that is being used now, and our professor knew that we were able to do it by our grades and by our participation in the studies, but we also had to know the prohibited law, the law that is not on the program but that we had to discover alone outside the Faculty. This forbidden right has been used in political regimes in our history to serve interests different from those in power today. At the time, this right was positive, not forbidden. In the event of crises today, the good lawyer understands that our rules, our institutions, no longer meet the needs of citizens and serve only to defend the interests of the ruling minority. It is therefore a question of looking in our history for the traces of this right that is currently prohibited, in order to find the rules and institutional solutions that we need to emerge from crises and eliminate them.
Using the Right forbidden by the ruling minority of the liberal power system represents the subject of this essay entitled Our Networks of Life.
Our social life networks are forbidden in positive law but we need them to leave and eliminate the liberal capitalist system. We need it now in order to quickly eliminate certain destructive consequences of the functioning of the liberal system and we can do it immediately by acting at the local level, using again, the functioning of the participatory local direct democracy that we call, at the time of the global Internet village: Social Life Netwoks
Example: the sacralization of individual property following the abscons ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau led the revolution of 1789 in the fatal error by removing, forgetting, the other two forms of property: on the one hand, common property managed directly by the social group at the local level as during the medieval period and its common goods, and on the other hand, collective property, although monopolized by royal absolutism but which cannot be dismissed, can be suppressed purely and simply on the pretext of eliminating this royal absolutism, because collective property, it is common sense, mainly manages the knowledge, the knowledge derived from our two sources of knowledge, spiritual and intellectual, rational. Rousseau demonstrates that he is not a good lawyer and that his Social Contract is a gross legal error to be discarded. If it serves to defend the religious and Catholic interests of the Roman papacy through the more or less secular myth of a natural right established by God, it is something else but it does not respond in any way to the choice of civilization to be led in the face of a despotic, tyrannical system of power. For moving from the sacralization of individual property to the private property of the means of production as early as 1790 was legal in order to meet the expectations of the new bourgeoisie of Business, Commerce and Industry and the debates to restrict this private property of the means of production, in France as early as the 1830s, were stopped, especially by the royal and then republican army which crushed the revolts and revolutions to restore common property and common goods as well as collective property and nationalizations. This source of inequality and social conflict has still not been eliminated and is certainly impossible to eliminate in the liberal capitalist system since it is one of its essential foundations.
One entry point among others into network organizations: the experience of quality circles in the 1985’s and the use of problem-solving groups and the subsidiarity principle in the operation of companies has enabled the adaptation of the working tool to the technological revolution of robots and programmable controllers. The result of this participatory management was the reduction of non-quality mainly in the industrial sector from 300 to 100 billion Francs per year.
This example shows that the boundaries between the two fundamental modes of organization are not watertight. Depending on needs and circumstances, one is more efficient than the other, but this simplistic and pragmatic view is wrong: the objectives of each are totally opposite. The quality circles were closed very quickly in France, once the total quality was obtained and the elimination of more than 200 billion non-quality products per year in the industrial production tool. Because the Directorates were afraid of this direct participatory management, accustomed that they are always for more than a century to paternalistic or even autocratic management. The dominance of shareholders since the 1990s, coupled with this fear, has put an end to the practice of direct local democracy in manufacturing companies. Presented under the term corporate governance, the irruption of shareholders and especially pension funds and investment funds more or less speculative in their strategy of buying and reselling companies has resulted in the sidelining of employees in the sharing of the added value and in the recurrent policies of reduction of wage costs, or even of massive relocation. The intervention of the new masters of the financial world who impose their liberal economic doctrine is reflected in a return to autocratic management methods and the rejection of participatory management. At best, employees must be satisfied with the continuing lack of action in the paternalistic management of French family businesses and adapt to the new bureaucracy of Risk Management: a committee of experts shall draw up the charter describing all the procedures for optimal operation of the system. Employees and management must therefore scrupulously respect these procedures, comply with this code of conduct and forget about their creative initiatives, because only the interests of shareholders matter.
A system of power works by giving precedence to rules. Ruling leaders use the law to force obedience on the rest of the social group. The exercise of power by the minority is then transformed into a general measure thanks to the mastery of the representative political system that gathers political activists who seek to take power in the functioning of the system. The difficulty lies in the fact that, in order to justify measures aimed at defending the particular interests of the ruling minority, it is necessary to use particular values that protect the interests of that minority. From then on myths and fictions are used, preferably utopias, that is, goals that will never be achieved and by what they will never be achieved, the leaders will be able to constantly demand from their people the efforts of submission necessary for the achievement of the goals they have set. It will be a question of dismantling the mechanism of these utopias and fables. In terms of lifestyles, there is an inevitable divide between the ruling class and others..
There is therefore a stronger adherence to these standards and a better motivation. The values and lifestyles of these groups are aligned. While the distinction between systems and networks is not fundamental to the first two economic functions of wealth production and distribution, it is fundamental to the distribution of wealth: the network distributes wealth much more equitably than systems of power. And that’s the main reason that system leaders have always been at war with networks. The same is true of religious power systems, which, in order to defend their dogmas, have always waged war on spiritual networks and movements.
The final alliance between the royal power system and the theocratic power system of the Roman papacy was forged by the French king Philip the Fair to impose on Rome a pope subservient to his will. This king was able to destroy the Knight Order of the Templars in 1307 and put an end to the network organization of the time of the cathedrals. 90% of the land wealth was managed by the network of abbeys and monasteries protected by the knights’ orders and the King of France who was ruined by this network organization, we know, resorted to criminal methods to eliminate this network organization that had developed Europe after the great invasions that followed the end of the Roman Empire. We will also return largely to this political divide which allowed the development of royal absolutism and the centralization of power still present in the republican institutions.
This distinction between systems and networks would not be complete without observing the fundamental differences between the two at the level of knowledge management.
Networks promote individual approaches to knowledge, primarily at the first source of knowledge, the initiatory and spiritual source. Networks seek complementarity between this primary source of personal knowledge and the source of intellectual knowledge managed at the social group level. Systems of power develop a monopoly on the knowledge that they select for their interests, and they erect a body of thought through dogmas and ideologies. Conflicts between systems and networks mark the history of mankind with a particularity: the most successful civilizations that have developed a standard of living that is often higher than ours, have all been organized into networks, through powerful confederations of peoples.
These civilizations were mostly destroyed by military systems that ruled autocratic, even despotic, empires. These systems of military power have been transformed into a system of religious or civil power with the constant concern to prohibit any knowledge related to the alternative of network organization.
The financial crises since 1997 point to a new form of conflict between the three forms of ownership: individual ownership of the means of production is no longer the only source of rapid and enormous wealth, it is strongly challenged by the collective power to manage the savings collected in financial funds and citizens are now faced with two systems of economic power whose interests are antagonistic to their own and the salary is no longer sufficient to resist the abusive appetites of financial institutions led by the ultra-liberal doctrine and unscrupulous financiers who defend their system of power above all.
Through the financial crisis of 2008, the system of financial power lost its collective dimension at the service of all savers and borrowers to clearly display its individual and private dimension at the service of a minority of financial agents in whose interests may now be contrary to those of other economic agents. On the network side, at European level, the principle of subsidiarity is one of the two pillars of the European Constitution, but our centralized French institutions operate in opposition to this fundamental principle of organization and this Constitution is still not fully adopted.
Moreover, it recognizes subsidiarity between states and European institutions, and it does not envisage establishing subsidiarity at local level in a direct democracy that will have put an end to the current representative democracies. Finally, at both the national and the European level, the use of a debt-free and full currency capable of bringing prosperity remains prohibited, even though it was used in France from 1945 to 1973, during the Thirty Glorious Years to rebuild and modernize the country.
Our movement through fileane.com shows how to leave our systems of power and develop networked organizations. It’s about rebuilding a new, flourishing civilization.
The second part presents the functioning of the systems of power and therefore inevitably these fables which allow the leaders to subject the people so that they do not understand that their work serves to enrich in priority and without limits a minority which usurped the power.
The third part shows the history of conflicts between systems of power and networks of social life. These conflicts for 2000 years have caused the massacre of hundreds of millions of human beings and caused immeasurable suffering across the peoples but they have also ensured the presence of a minority of leaders who have enriched each more scandalously than the other. and whose arrogance has been openly displayed since the 2008 crisis.
The fourth part describes in a more precise and complete way the different networks of social life and their respective institutions, missions, organizations and functioning. Through a new civilization. It will be a question of going into the details of the various policies which allow the development of the networks citizens of life and to describe this new art of living.
Learn to develop a found art of living, as in the most flourishing civilizations in the history of humanity, learn to survive the unstable life of our planet and understand the mystery of the apocalypse as it was taught On the edges of the Nile in the Temple of Dendérah and its double home of life, this is the purpose of this essay on our life networks put online on Fileane.com. Enter yourself in this vast area of prohibited law, from our first source of knowledge to develop your skills in the replacement of our social life networks and leave, abandon all submission to the leaders of power systems.
This new (re) evolution towards networks is described here, by a poet who destroys and abandoned the myths which legitimizes power systems for two thousand years in the West. He puts into practice the two sources of knowledge which found the most brilliant civilizations in terms of the development of life and human values.
And we will respond to the goal of the preamble to the Declaration of Human and Citizen’s Rights of 1789: yes, corruption and ignorance are the two causes at the origin of all the evils of our societies.
These two causes cannot develop in network organizations, they are inherent in power systems even if the leaders of these systems, by dint of utopias, fictions, myths try to make us believe the opposite because their status leaders who legitimize their abusive sources of material wealth does not exist in a network organization. We are far from the vile and barely French-French politician quarrels who have considerably denied the image of professional politicians, their parties as well as the image of current representative democracy, in France as in other countries