Part 1 – Institutions of life networks

From Insurance to Solidarity.

The implementation of the alliance of opposites and subsidiarity in the Economic Institutions.

Risks in Economics

The production of material wealth or knowledge, like all human activity, is based on taking into account risks, whether in the relationship between space and time, in social life, the struggle between systems of power and organizations in Networks of Life. The action involves risks. Misperception, misinterpretation and difficulties in interpersonal or mass communication, ignorance, the absence of an optimal solution in the state of current knowledge, are many causes of the risks.

The rarity in the liberal capitalist system

The capitalist and liberal economic system uses the notion of scarcity, which stems from the failure to satisfy needs and the supply present in the markets, the main risk that disrupts this system. The major risk capable of destroying the system, ruining it, is overproduction and production capacities that are no longer useful. The entrepreneur who best satisfies these needs and thus minimizes scarcity in his market, then finds the legitimacy to maximize his individual profits and also the legitimacy to eliminate his competitors in order to eliminate this deadly risk of overproduction and to find himself faced with problems over production capacity. Here we are faced with the contradiction of the capitalist system: destroy competition to minimize its production risk and maximize its personal profits.

Losses of productive capacity, a major risk in industrial capitalism.

When it comes to satisfying not needs but unlimited desires in the minds of consumers, scarcity then becomes an abundance of marketing responses and the development of a society of hyper consumption and waste of resources. This was the answer given by Edward Bernays after 1925. Sigmund Freud’s nephew and John Rockefeller’s public relations advisor in developing Propaganda thus saved capitalism which had reached its major risk, the overcapacity of the factories which had supplied the weapons of the First World War and which, at the same rate of production, were capable of rapidly producing in mass goods to satisfy the needs of the citizens.

Bernays after the age of 60 recognized the mistake of his youth and spent his fortune in his Institute to fight against the ideology of the consumer society and its waste, the rise of social inequalities. It is likely that the leaders of the liberal system will find other ways of retaining power and subjecting people to crises and wars, because they know how to do that. We will come to this in the presentation of power systems, in the second part of this essay Les Réseaux de Vie.

The main risk in the field of the production and distribution of wealth produced by the work of all was born with the industrial society and the use of machines, the development of technologies today driven by programmable automata, robots, artificial intelligence. These means are used for their performance, their productivity in the return on capital but without taking into account their nuisances, job destruction and the development of structural unemployment, job insecurity, pollution, damage to the environment, nature and the climate. Through citizen movements for ecology, the elimination of these nuisances are tolerated with their right of expression but have little impact on the political, economic and social decisions taken by the leaders, the world government of the liberal system.

Economic risks in Life Networks.

The Life Networks, as our reader has understood, do exactly the opposite of the liberal system and the political action of the citizens decides through the alliance of opposites and subsidiarity, to eliminate these nuisances and damage to our environment, to eliminate unemployment and they manage risks, to minimize their consequences, even to eliminate them.

The alliance of opposites at the level of political institutions and decision-making, examines the interests of stakeholders in solving a problem or satisfying a need. The aim is to define the objectives, tasks and objectives taking into account the risks. Secondly, the use of subsidiarity makes it possible to define the optimal solution as far as current knowledge is concerned, taking into account the risks identified. Finally, at the level of local political action, citizens compare the objectives, the optimal solution and local particularities, not to find any minimalist consensus but to make a decision capable of achieving unanimity at their local level since members understood that this decision contains the best way to respond to any problem or need while minimizing or eliminating risks.

The major risk of capitalism does not exist in the Networks of Life when it comes to managing all human activity using the complementarity between the three forms of property. When there is a risk of overproduction or of leaving citizens unemployed in the level of work essential to life and survival, the development of works which raise the standard of living and are passed on to future generations takes over and the development of real estate and infrastructure absorbs the available productive capacities and skills. This was the case on the banks of the Nile: all work in the fields and produce three crops in six months, and during the six months of river flooding, all work on the plateaus above the river to build cities, temples and monuments. Similar to the medieval period with the construction of free cities and their military protections, the construction of cathedrals, market places, buildings for storage of goods and commodities, hospitals, schools and universities, etc.

Of course, this decision taken by the local political action of the citizens will not automatically eliminate all the risks associated with a human action or the risks present in nature, the life of our planet, the sun, etc. The decision taken by the political institution, free city, life project team, national guard and military defense, confederation, translates at the economic level into the choice of an optimal solution adapted to local particularities and accompanied by a risk insurance system.

When the objective is achieved, the strategy, the judicious use of resources, the organization of work and its remuneration, the use of full money to finance this project, its investments and the remuneration of work, the use of common goods, etc., the whole of this organization, which has demonstrated its relevance, its efficiency, then represents the challenge of solidarity, the gain to be obtained through sharing this practice, in this way of organizing a project to ensure the satisfaction of a need or the elimination of a dysfunction.

This sharing, initially in the form of a gift of knowledge, of intangible knowledge, will allow another local network, all local networks, to solve this same need or this same dysfunction, if necessary, much more quickly and simply by directly transposing this method, this organization and just having to adapt it to their own local particularities.

The Mulhouse Industrial Society in the 19th century.

This practice, as we have said, concerns first and foremost the use of technologies, especially in their early stages when they are not yet fully mastered. To illustrate this situation, we use the case of the Mulhouse industrial company, in Alsace, and the organization set up in the nineteenth century to combat the fire risk of factories. This organization, evident in its principles, enabled rapid and considerable industrial development to transform the city, the former free republic attached to the Swiss Confederation of Free Cantons until 1798 and its will, that year, to join the new French republic, into a Rhenish Manchester. Of course, and just as obviously, this example of industrial development has been forbidden by the leaders of capitalism and their affiliated politicians, since it is contrary, radically opposite to the interests of the individual owners of the means of production and their shareholders, commercial banks and private central banks, not to mention the state, which does not find any reason to levy taxes here.

To illustrate this insurance approach in economic life, we can take the example of the industrial development of the city of Mulhouse in the 19th century.

The logic of insurance is for members to make preventive efforts to limit the occurrence of risks. For example, in the early 19th century, elected officials in a department were able to decide on the creation of a fire-fighting mutual. In each village, the volunteers came together to join the mutual and provide assistance: when a neighbor discovered that there was still light in a house late at night, he would check that a lamp had not been forgotten to be turned off. As a result of these efforts, the number of fire disasters is rapidly decreasing and the mutual company is making profits from which members can decide on new objectives. These surpluses and benefits can have three uses:

  • allow a reduction in contributions for the new financial year
  • Allow for the expansion of the risks covered: for example, in addition to the fire, insurance will cover water damage, theft, etc.
  • Distribute these surpluses to members in the form of a zero-rate loan according to the relevance of the investment projects submitted and provide a banking service in addition to an insurance service.

Once the preventive measures have been successfully implemented, the increase in results allows a capacity for the development and maintenance of the equipment. The efforts of all stakeholders will be all the more rewarded when this solidarity is based on common ownership, and we will come to that.

Modern insurance in France was born in Mulhouse around 1820.

The textile manufacturers, from the mechanical construction of this city to better compete with cities like Basel, German and Dutch cities along the Rhine, decided to join a mutual. At the time, the insurance system operated on a pay-as-you-go basis: each quarter-end, a balance sheet was drawn up between the amount of claims to be compensated and the total contributions. The distribution was elementary. The industrialist could not be satisfied with this system and the Mulhouse decided to found their own insurance mutual.

Upon the disaster, compensation was paid and new workshops were built. The common objective was to have the least fire, and measures to prevent and combat this disaster were regularly improved. A modern fire brigade was pooled; employers funded the training of workers in firefighting and they funded the construction of new fire stations equipped with the best equipment. These fire stations were shared with the city for the public service of fire fighting and first aid, especially of course in the new working cities.

Soon, in these new workshops, where fire risks had become minimal, manufacturers were able to invest the sums pooled to increase the productivity of their machines. Once the damage caused by the fires had been eliminated, the insurance became an investment bank under the conditions laid down by the manufacturers themselves: i.e. with a zero rate of credit independent of any monetary policy, management costs already being paid at the insurance level. The loan rate to invest was zero! No bank could match these conditions and this mutual company, which was able to provide the services of a bank and insurance, was the foundation of the industrial development of the Mulhouse region.

la SACM vers 1840-1850

Mutuelle La Mulhousienne’s insurance bank managed by the industrial company.

From 1861, when industrialists in Biarritz tenaciously obtained Napoleon III’s decree publicly authorizing Mulhousienne to carry on its business as an insurance bank, a second phenomenon amplified the dynamism of this financial structure. Industry believers in the validity of this system joined the Mutual Society from all over Europe.

When there was a surplus of revenue over claims, and this system could only lead to this result because it brought together only members who were involved in the fight against the fire, the funds available were first used by the founders in Mulhouse to develop their industries. Since then, these industrialists named Koechlin, Dollfus, Thierry Mieg, Schlumberger, Hartmann have given a national and global dimension to their activities.

The mutualist society, for its part, did not reach this level of development because it was not the purpose of this society, but aimed at the expansion of industrial enterprises and not at the development of a financial organization capable of cutting itself off from its source until it came to direct it in order to make its objectives of financial profitability to the detriment of the future of industries or of the service sector.

Koechlin in 1827 built the most modern and largest foundry in France to produce steam engines and locomotives, the cradle of our current TGV. He is the founder of the SACM, the origin of what was the CGE; The “Al” from Alcatel or Alsthom comes from Alsacienne, Mulhouse. The main leaders of the industrial society of Mulhouse were Protestants and here we also find a living trace of the Protestant movement and of the social dimension that this movement wanted to build by producing material productions to improve the lives of the people.

Belfort and Alsthom.

Here is a historical sequence of the subsidiarity practiced in the time of cathedrals. Between the Rhineland and Protestant corporate culture that persists on the historic site of Belfort and the management of Alsthom’s general management in Paris, misunderstanding and miscommunication will regularly undermine the building of the company.

The centenary strike, which broke out on 27 September 1979 in Belfort, has forged a state of mind whose sustainability will be measured even today. It was born of a deep humiliation. Deaf to any claim, while Belgian wages are 30% lower than those of Le Bourget since the creation of Alsthom-Atlantique three years earlier, management multiplies errors. She has the factory repainted, plans a banquet and offers each employee the choice between a pen, a watch, a bottle of cognac or a souvenir medal.

Behind the slogan “no medal, the thirteenth month! ”, the interunion’s response is scathing: the symbol of the railway and nuclear power of Giscard France is occupied for 58 days, in the name of dignity. From the worker to the manager, everyone mobilizes with the support of the population. Nearly 15,000 people parade during the “Dead City” operations on October 12 and 24, to the sound of the famous “Red Cloth”. The local left, which is in charge, financially helps the strikers, as well as the banks, while the right calls for compromise. Jean-Pierre Chevême, then an MP, summed up this incredible confrontation in one sentence: “In Belfort, you don’t usually bend your head”. And the prefect followed suit: “For the Belfortians, Alsthom is the heart of the city; the plant belongs to them. Perhaps the prefect was familiar with the culture of Mulhouse’s industrial society and the way Protestants organized their enterprises into a common good of leaders and workers.

The first TGV 001 prototype powered by a gas turbine, was released from the Alsthom workshops in Belfort on 25 October 1971 with some delay. At the beginning of the centennial strike, an angry group of employees blew up the leading cabin of the train. Trade unionists prevented the plasticising of the second cabin by intervening in time to remove the explosives taken from a quarry in the area. After the damaged cabin was repaired, the trainset was able to exit the factory discreetly on 25 October, but the party for the official inauguration of the exit of this prototype could not take place. It’s this head-mounted motor that’s on display on the side of the highway in Belfort. This plasticising of the cabin of the TGV 001 was never forgiven and forgotten at the Avenue Kléber headquarters of the Alsthom Group. However, apart from a few days late, this did not prevent this train from breaking the world record for autonomous traction train speed (318 km/h on 8 December 1972), a record of the kind it still holds in 2016. The driver was a Belgian railroad worker and the record was beaten on the Landes line.

This episode, unique in its kind to challenge a Parisian Directorate General, illustrates in itself the fierce desire of employees to remain in control of their work, whatever the cost. This emotional appropriation also materialized in the streets in 1994 and 1995, against the employment threats affecting the GEC-Alsthom consortium. And more insidiously, when Alsthom lost his “h” in 1998, following yet another capitalist restructuring. This “h” of the old Thomson allied with the early Alsatian society, is then more than a letter. For the “Alsthomans”, it symbolizes the human in a decaying industrial empire. This “h” stroke experienced as an amputation even gives rise to a play.

This fight illustrates the resistance of the citizens who have known solidarity insurance and who refuse to see it disappear under the dictates of finance and its industrial restructuring in order to better develop the profitability of its financial investments and to serve its shareholders outrageously, forgetting the employees whose skills are recognized at world level.

The business risk insurance approach.

This insurance approach is found in many ways today in the life of companies that behave more as networks of skills than as systems of power perfectly subservient to the capitalist economic system.

Insurance takes place when prevention approaches are many coherent and strategic. An IT company that sells solutions to its customers ( like SAS for example ) needs to retain its staff and to avoid unwanted departures, it will certainly improve the working conditions but also save its living resources: intellectual resources cannot be used beyond a certain time. 32 hours a week is sufficient when the employee can adjust his working time according to his availability and his physical fitness.

In order to concentrate on his work, it is wise to remove the time-consuming tasks of everyday life. From then on, the workplace becomes a campus where work time and daily life are combined, and even family life when facilities for catering, nursery, sports and relaxation are nearby. The employee will be at his office for 32 hours, but he will be present on campus for almost 50 hours a week and he will practice with his colleagues, his family, the families of the colleagues, another level of communication and exchange that will preserve his motivation and his availability for the success of the company and his professional life.

This insurance approach is not limited to the life of a company, but concerns the whole economic activity. We still have to agree.

Our economic system based on individual ownership and profit maximization is in fact limited to the market economy. The practice of bancassurance set up by the industrialists of Mulhouse is today prohibited in our capitalist economic system.

Each activity must be managed in isolation: insurance has to make a profit, and so does the industry, because at every step the government collects taxes and the banks collect their interest. The profits of the fire insurance mutual can no longer be used directly by manufacturers to develop their businesses because this removes part of the taxes that the state can levy.

Moreover, this logic is not favorable to the development of investment banks and is contrary to speculation on the financial markets. This very effective and equally efficient logic has the great error of excluding the state and excluding traditional banks.

The public community must also be wary of such networked practices, as the rapid and extensive development of networked enterprises leads to economic entities capable of directing local political life without the help of the professional politicians who drive the representative political system.

But it should be noted that the influence of the Mulhouse industrial society has nothing to do with the practices of the industrial barons of the metallurgy, in France as in Germany who quickly became merchants of guns and came to support the warmongers in the conquest of political power, we will come to this.

Market and non-market economy in the pursuit of profit.

In our system of power, the choice of leaders has been to eliminate as much as possible the non-market economy; the economy relies above all on the market economy, which alone creates wealth. The non-market economy and general government are financed from levies on the market economy.

The opening up of the wealth-creating non-market economy is still denied and prohibited by recent court decisions, and we will come back to that. As a result, the pursuit of profit often becomes contrary to a logic of insurance and prevention.

We know of housing developments built in flood-prone areas: the land was worthless to the farmers and building buildings there could only bring significant benefits to the developers. Compensation for claims resulting from repeated flooding quickly becomes an unbearable expense for insurance and the community.

There are hundreds of other equally calamitous examples for the economy and social protection. Later in this essay, we will show how networking solves the fundamental problems of our society: unemployment, financing of health and pension expenditure, housing, education and training, etc.

The network organization does not use the distinction between public and private nor the distinction between market and non-market economy. It is based on a set of projects that converge in the realization of the answers given when the values of the culture defined by the group are put in place, and we know that among these values, through the alliance of opposites, are the values of peace and love.

As a result, problem-solving groups are no longer limited to employees, but extend to groups of citizens who take charge of the community’s life politically, economically and socially. Citizen life networks are organized on the basis of mutual societies that practice risk insurance and risk prevention and, beyond that, implement solidarity processes. The logic of insurance in risk prevention is simple to understand, the transition from insurance to solidarity is just as simple to explain, but in systems of power, it runs up against the many walls of the particular interests of the system’s leaders. This group of leaders is not homogeneous in a system: politicians must resist the wishes of economic and financial leaders, politicians have different social backgrounds, different political ambitions. These disputes do not exist in networked organizations that unite around common projects.

How to move from a logic of insurance to a logic of solidarity.

The Failure of Social Security

The most serious failure of an insurance system that has failed to evolve into a solidarity organization is that of social security in France As early as 1945, the founders of Social Security, Pierre Laroque and others, indicated that very quickly these social protection organizations had to move from the logic of insurance to the logic of solidarity. Although this has not happened because of the opposition of economic leaders and the ignorance often shown by employees’ representatives, we shall come back to this, and here we must understand what a logic of solidarity brings in comparison with a logic of insurance.

Risk prevention and solidarity.

We have seen how the logic of insurance in industry can lead to economies capable of ensuring the development of a group of companies. The success of his efforts can be explained by the perfect mastery of technology on the part of these engineers who created their plants.

Prevention efforts have focused on changing attitudes: Employers and workers have found a common interest in eliminating the risk of fire, the cost of non-quality production, in the development of the country. The resources used in this fire-fighting were known, only needed to be refined and staff training used.

Solidarity happens precisely when these solutions are not available in a given environment. Faced with a risk that arises, when the group is not able to identify the means of prevention and especially the solutions to eliminate the consequences of what has just happened, to find the means to prevent this risk from recurring, it is necessary to find knowledge, it is necessary to have new knowledge.

Solidarity is a sharing of knowledge.

Solidarity is not a question of financial resources but of knowledge. It is about sharing knowledge in different contexts and environments. Solidarity is based on the alliance of opposites. He who works the land is cared for and helped by the one who works in the monastery and one feeds the other materially and the other provides the intangible food.

To continue the example of the Mulhouse Industrial Society, we know that during the War of 1870, in order to follow the military strategy then in force, the 6th Mulhouse Line Regiment withdrew to the stronghold of Belfort and the workers of the industrial city brought a capital reinforcement which kept the German besiegers in check. Then SACM (the Alsatian mechanical construction company) moved to Belfort from 1879 to escape the German occupation. Solidarity allows the development of regions and the eradication of poverty and hunger, resistance against the oppressor.

It has enabled many peoples to overcome the crises that threatened them, so why is it not developing at its optimum in times of peace, in times of growth and progress? Because growth can only be confiscated, plundered by some at the expense of all others?

The classic example of solidarity is well known: i don’t give you fish or money to buy fish, but i teach you how to fish. Lending a good or material that the other does not have and needs is also called in everyday language, help or solidarity. But when we say that solidarity must be the logical continuation of insurance and prevention, we are putting forward another essential issue in society, in relations between social groups.

A group that manages to develop its confidence will become richer by managing its resources much better and avoiding the waste of its resources. It can then turn inward to preserve its gains. We are then confronted with conservatism and above all with a corporate reflex.

It is obvious that the founders of social security in 1945 were aware of this difficulty, this socially formidable trap. Groups of employees (miners, factory workers, railway workers, managers, civil servants, teachers, peasants, etc. ) were initially to set up their own mutual societies or social insurance companies. We know the mutual support of teachers, etc. These mutual support societies then had to federate at national level to show solidarity with the more disadvantaged social groups in order to eradicate poverty, unemployment and those situations which prevent a society from developing into social progress.

What one achieves then serves the success of others, for the objective is indeed to raise a standard of living, to know, to solidify social relations within a people and then between peoples in order to eliminate the risks of conflicts that sow misery, death and desolation among humanity. Combating illness, disability, accidents at work, lack of vocational training, taking maternity into account, physiological needs for rest and holidays, retirement, are objectives for all social groups that use common resources and methods: hospitals, nurseries, schools, retirement homes, training centers, recreation centers, etc.

We must still want it politically! We will return in the second part of this book to our reading of the causes that prevented this passage in France, this evolution from the insurer state of the end of the 19th century to a solidarity-based French republic. We can already say that it is not up to the employees or the French citizens to pay for the damage caused by these calamitous political policies for more than a century.

We might as well leave this system of power which refuses solidarity to prefer corporatism and the conservative domination of the elites of the old bourgeoisie in order to preserve its wealth and its domination of French society.

Solidarity in the distribution of wealth.

In the life of networks, solidarity is the end of the process of production and distribution of wealth.

This process begins at the individual level with the exercise of the mission of authority and then it continues at the group level with the management of the delegation of authority, the establishment of a power which uses the alliance of opposites in the definition of its objectives and the dialog, then being able to use the principle of subsidiarity in order to obtain the optimal solutions necessary for the implementation of the policies implemented.

The results achieved relate to minimizing violence and maximizing trust on a relational level, eliminating risks and setting up a mutualization of banking and insurance, raising the level of skills of members, and producing and distributing the wealth created from the projects carried out.

Solidarity does not come only at the moment of distribution of wealth, as in the current conception of our systems of power. It has nothing to do with a level of organization of charity.

Solidarity occurs throughout the process, whenever a group has knowledge or know-how that is capable of helping a different group in need.

The performance is all the more excellent as the contribution of an optimal solution by another group is achieved when defining the objectives of a project through the stage of the alliance of opposites. The group can then move directly to tailoring this solution to its local particularities. This saves time and resources.

Solidarity increases productivity gains.

The sources of productivity gains are then the rise in the level of skills and a change in the structure of organization and decision-making, not to mention the possibility of powerful synergies. Solidarity can be material, intellectual, spiritual, artistic, sporting, financial. Once solidarities are in place, standards of living are able to manage the common goods and a full currency, without debts. In our fourth part we will show how we intend to implement these new solidarities within the network organizations.

We have developed this case of the development of the Mulhouse industrial corporation. Its elimination by the leaders of the capitalist system, by the French employers and the governments in its pay, continues mainly through the recent attacks on the Alsthom group and its historic site of Belfort where remains of the Rhine, humanist and Protestant culture of the Mulhouse industrial society. The two pillars that emerged from it, Alsthom and Alcatel, were in the 1970s the foundation of the CGE industrial group whose development after 1945 was supported by the use of the full currency, without debts, created by the Banque de France, nationalized since 1945, full currency that financed the reconstruction and then the industrial and economic, social development of the country. We mentioned this in the poet’s speech to the free city of Belfort in spring 2019 during the protests against the measures to dismantle gas turbine power.

Needless to say, this example demonstrates the total lack of solidarity, since this remarkable industrial development, because of its prohibition, its elimination, has not served as a model, an optimal solution for the other industrial sectors and the French economy as a whole.

 A limit to solidarity: the gap between technologies, such as the patent on Thomson-CSF LCDs, and the like.

Alongside these risks associated with the development of technologies, such as the fire risk associated with the explosion of steam engines in the 1810s and 1820s, is the risk associated with ignorance or the impossibility of using a patent because innovation is too far ahead of the available technology. This case is illustrated here by the use of the patent on liquid crystal displays in 1990 at Thomson-CSF. As in the case of the Mulhouse industrial company, we find here management errors and catastrophic political decisions which will result in the non-use of this patent in French industry and the loss of a real opportunity to develop a global public production.

The example of Thomson-CSF and its patent on liquid crystal displays, or the risk of incomprehension and incompetence of French political leaders in the 1990s, is an example of a huge management error that accompanies the deindustrialization of the country and its impoverishment.

Here we summarize the Thomson case presented in the Trainings section of fileane.com that the reader will want to go through for more details and more details.

Initially, there was a patent on LCD flat screens, developed in 1960 by the Japanese company SHARP and the American company RCA, world leader in CRT television. From the 1960s until the advent of computers with computers with powerful microprocessors, this patent could not be used, especially on large IBM computer systems or others. Even the very powerful central computer could not manage the billions of pixels of the thousands of screens connected to it at the same time.

In the late 1980s, with the advent of powerful microprocessors, it became possible to use flat-panel displays with new microcomputers. This is of interest to project teams that develop weapons systems with screens on board aircraft, submarines or any type of military equipment.

In France, Thomson-CSF developed the weapons systems for the Rafale and the new SNLE (nuclear submarines). The experts of the group know that this patent is becoming indispensable and the development of 16/9 television, the improvement of the image quality of television screens, other projects of the Thomson group for the general public, all pushes the General Directorate to seize the opportunity of the acquisition of RCA, an industrial giant of television but whose financiers do not want to bear the enormous costs of its technological change or simply ignore that it possesses the famous patent on liquid crystal screens.

Immediately after the acquisition of RCA in 1988, the first liquid crystal displays were produced in the clean rooms of Saint-Estrike, near Grenoble. New clean rooms because the old ones are sent to other laboratories of the group and in particular to Sophia-Antipolis. In 1990, liquid crystal displays were used for the Rafale and the NLSS control room. But it seems that production will stop there in the context of the military secrecy surrounding these weapons programs or at least that a public version has not been implemented.

It is true that the extra cost of these equipment with these new technologies compared to the older specifications which serve as the basis for public financing has immediately posed serious political problems to the government which, since 1973, can no longer ask the Banque de France for financing in full currency, at least in Treasury Bond made available to the government without interest.

It is here that the non-use of this patent on liquid crystals in the production of flat screens for other industrial equipment and the general public is probably due. The governments did not want to borrow to finance the development of these new technologies, which were certainly burned by the devaluation of the Franc in 1983 and the presidential will to succeed in setting up the euro with strong Franc policies during the 1990s.

Ignorance about the evolution of new technologies has plunged policymakers into the scandal of France’s abandonment of its role as a global leader in flat-screen TVs.

Were the leaders of high finance aware of this and took advantage of it so that our country could fall into this scandal, so that this flat screen production could be used by other private industrial groups and that they controlled directly, like Philips in the Netherlands? This brand was the first in Europe to present liquid crystal displays in the early 2000s in partnership with the Korean group LG Electronics.

The refusal in 1997 of Thomson’s President, Thierry Breton, to launch a liquid crystal display production for EDF’s EAA and French nuclear power stations, a monumental management error, certainly alerted competitors, and in particular SHARP, which owned the joint ownership of this patent, hence the development of this production by Thomson’s direct competitors … which found the sources of financing from banks and high finance, but not the French public industrial group, whose political leaders and employers only wanted it to disappear and be sold by apartments to private investors.

So business goes in the system of liberal capitalist power.

These two examples of what was the CGE and THOMSON groups illustrate what the political institutions of the Networks of Life will not do and will not order to do to their economic and social institutions.

The implementation of insurance in the production of wealth in the framework of Life Networks:

1) list the main risks and provide a financial guarantee in case of disasters.

This guarantee is funded according to the work, skills, resources needed to eliminate the risk and/or repair the disasters that have occurred. In other words, it is a matter of planning the workload that the project team will have to carry out to eliminate the damage suffered and the necessary external assistance. When this work is carried out, if necessary, his remuneration shall be in full currency. In the event that these risks have been avoided or their consequences minimized, the project team saves money on its budget and this profit, at the end of the project, will be used to finance another project or the continuation of this project with more important objectives, which will limit the need for money creation to finance new equipment or new investments.

2) the serious, material risk must be ruled out

either definitively, because it constitutes a serious threat to life and survival, or temporarily, because innovation cannot be used by technologies on the basis of the knowledge currently available, it is a matter of evaluating the work and resources required to put this patent, this innovation, this technology, this knowledge that is harmful to life and survival out of harm’s way.

This risk discovered during the realization of a project in the context of wealth production is the subject of a referral to the political institutions of the Networks of Life: National Guard and Military Defense, life project teams, free cities, confederation. These political institutions, through the political action of citizens, define the conditions under which this risk and this knowledge are kept secret and segregated, as well as the legal and military means to defend this segregation from knowledge and this secrecy. We are here in the presence of this policy based on our two sources of knowledge to put the sword in the custody of the sacred, a policy already practiced in antiquity in the temples on the banks of the Nile or in the clearings of the forests by the Celtic druids. The work and resources required to implement this policy of risk aversion that cannot be eliminated and minimized are financed by the use of full currency, without debt.

The establishment of solidarity in the production of wealth in the framework of the Networks of Life:

1) Dissemination of the optimal solution

and the knowledge that makes it up, is one of the responsibilities of the political institutions, in particular the Confederation which manages the technical documentation and gathers the decisions taken in the Life Networks to satisfy the needs of their members.

This documentation includes the optimal solution and its adaptations to the local particularities achieved so far. This documentation is free of charge for the members of the Confederation of Life Networks and corresponds to the donation economy. Requests to the Confederation by external organizations are considered and met in exchange for the signing of a Peace Treaty with the Confederation and the counterparties participate in the political, economic and social development of all parties to the Peace Treaties. The dissemination and exchange of knowledge put into practice the solidarity developed by the Networks of Life. The evaluation of the savings and benefits brought by solidarity is recorded in the balance sheet of the political institutions that have carried them out and these evaluations are consolidated at Confederation level.

(2) The exclusion and exclusion from harm of innovation, patent and knowledge that is harmful to life and survival,

is the most delicate mission of solidarity because it mobilizes numerous, diverse and enduring skills and resources to guarantee these strategic objectives that jeopardize the survival of life and the sustainability of the Networks of Life. The risks were identified when setting the objectives through the use of the alliance of opposites but when this innovation and/or this knowledge were developed by organizations external and foreign to the Networks of Life, any citizen who is a member of the National Guard, when he discovers this threat, can alert his free city and its national guard, his team of life projects or, where appropriate, directly the confederation.

The local practice of the alliance of opposites and subsidiarity then tries to evaluate this threat with the resources allocated at the local level by the assembly of political action. Local experts contact their colleagues from other local networks, the Confederation networks, and the management of this threat is attributed to the political institution best able to ensure its evaluation and the measures to eliminate it. Upon confirmation of this threat with the first available knowledge, the local National Guard establishes a relationship with the Confederation to set up the process of a peace treaty and then, in the event of refusal by the external organization, the process of declaring war against this external organization in order to eliminate this threat to life and survival.

This sidelining of dangerous and criminal scientific research has become a hot topic in the last twenty years with the development of GMO plants, research in biology to make biological weapons with viruses, bacteria and create pandemics, not to mention chemical weapons, new climate weapons, physics research on antimatter, gravitation, etc.

The cost of obtaining solidarity

We are here, then, in the case of an assessment of the cost of obtaining solidarity, which brings together and accounts for the work, skills and resources used, including military resources, to eliminate this threat. A balance between the benefits of solidarity achieved internally and the cost of obtaining solidarity externally is established annually by the Confederation. It serves to define the axes of development of the Networks of Life against the systems of power throughout planet Earth and its present humanity.

Summary diagram

to present the link between the decision-making stages, the political institutions and the economic institutions at risk and threat management level in order to develop solidarity and protect us.

decision-making stage

principle of organization of political institutions

principle of organization of economic institutions

step 5
risk measurement

alliance of opposites

insurance

steps 4 and 6
the optimal solution

subsidiarity

solidarity

The application of these principles of organization throughout the process of production and distribution of wealth is ensured by the Total Quality approach that drives the work and development of skills among the teams of life projects.

Continue reading