From Insurance to Solidarity.

The alliance of the opposites makes it possible to define the objectives in a team of projects and subsidiarity then intervenes to obtain the optimal solution that will be applied according to local particularities.

These basic political principles are translated economically into insurance and prevention of the risks present in all human activity. We are here at the level of defining the objectives and the alliance of opposites..

Subsidiarity in economic terms is also reflected in solidarity, that is to say the sharing of the optimal solution between the members of the Networks of Life who need it. The goal is to develop the Networks of Life and not to maximize the profits of the minority that runs the systems of power.

We are no longer in the presence of the more or less perfect ideology of competition used in the capitalist system to legitimize the domination of the richest and therefore the strongest over the peoples and also to succeed in weakening or even eliminating the intervention of the states in their defense of the interests of their citizens.

Solidarity is quite the opposite, the opposite of this practice of competition to crush economic actors in a situation of weakness or dependency by the leaders of the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy.

Risks in Economics

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

Scarcity in the Liberal Capitalist System

The capitalist and liberal economic system uses the notion of scarcity that arises from the failure to satisfy the needs and supply present on the markets, the main risk that disrupts this system.

Scarcity is a fiction that legitimizes employers’ powers. If they manage to minimize this scarcity, they will satisfy consumers’ needs and thus show their usefulness, their skills and their rights to maximize their profits. This theory hides above all the practice of organizing a scarcity in a market in order to increase prices and maximize profits.

In reality, the major risk that can destroy the system, that can ruin it, is overproduction and that of production capacities that are no longer useful.

The entrepreneur who best satisfies these needs and thus minimizes the scarcity in his market, then finds the legitimacy to maximize his individual profits and also the legitimacy to eliminate his competitors in order to avoid this deadly risk of overproduction and to be faced with overcapacity..

Here, we are indeed faced with the contradiction of the capitalist system: destroying competition in order to minimize its production risk and maximize its personal profits.

Overcapacity is a major risk in industrial capitalism.

This risk was analyzed as early as 1920 by Jacques Duboin who realized that the formidable industrial tool that had allowed the increase in the production of weapons and ammunition to win the war of 1914-1918, could also in a few years produce material goods to satisfy the needs of the citizens. Once these needs are met, most machines and factories would have to be shut down to avoid overproduction and below-cost selling.

He then proposed the solution of the distributive economy and thus the exit of capitalism which would then have achieved its production objectives and would no longer be useful.

When it comes to satisfying not needs but unlimited desires in consumers’ minds, scarcity becomes an abundance of marketing responses and the development of a society of hyper-consumption and wasted resources.

This was the answer given by Edward Bernays after 1925. Sigmund Freud’s nephew and John Rockefeller’s public relations adviser on developing the Propaganda thus saved capitalism, which had reached its greatest risk, from the production overcapacity of the factories that had supplied the weapons of World War I and that, at the same rate of production, were able rapidly to mass produce goods to satisfy citizens’ needs..

Bernays after the age of 60 will recognize the error of his youth and spend his fortune at his institute to fight against the ideology of the consumer society and its waste, the rise of social inequalities. The leaders of the liberal system will probably be able to find other ways of retaining power and subjugating people again and again to crises and wars, since they know only that. We will come to this in the presentation of power systems, the second part of this essay The Networks of Life.

The main risk in the production and distribution of the wealth produced by everyone’s work arose from industrial society and the use of machines, the development of technologies now driven by programmable automata, robots, and artificial intelligence. These resources are used for their performance, their productivity in terms of return on capital, but without taking account of their nuisances, job destruction and the development of structural unemployment, job insecurity, pollution, damage to the environment, nature and climate. Through citizens’ environmental movements, the elimination of these nuisances is tolerated with their right of expression but has little impact on the political, economic and social decisions taken by the leaders, the world government of the liberal system.

Economic risks in the Networks of Life.

The Networks of Life, as our reader has understood, are 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 attacks on our environment, to eliminate unemployment and they manage to manage the risks, to minimize their consequences, even to eliminate them.

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 at the level of work essential for life and survival, the development of works that raise the standard of living and are passed on to future generations takes over and the development of real estate and infrastructure absorbs the production capacities and skills available.

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.

The same goes for the medieval period with the construction of free cities and their military protections, the construction of cathedrals, market places, buildings for storing goods and foodstuffs, hospitals, schools and universities, etc.

The economic horror highlighted by Hannah Arendt shows that in capitalism, work is limited to the first level: the work essential to life and above all to maximizing the profits of the owners of the means of production. The realization of works that raise the standard of living and that are passed on to future generations does not interest the leaders of the neo-liberal capitalist system of power because in view of their private interests, it is unproductive of private profits. Likewise, the political action of all citizens is confiscated by the wealthiest minority that runs this capitalist system.

Of course, in our Networks of Life, this decision taken by the local political action of the citizens will not automatically eliminate all the risks associated with 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 the local peculiarities and accompanied by a system of insurance against risks.

When the objective is achieved, the strategy, the judicious use of resources, the organization of work and its remuneration, the use of the full currency to finance this project, its investments and remuneration for work, the use of the 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 the sharing of this practice, 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 enable another local network, all local networks, to solve the same need or 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 characteristics. This sharing has existed and among many examples, we will take the example of Mulhouse.

Mulhouse industrial society in the 19th century.

This practice of risk elimination, as we have said, relates first and foremost to the use of technologies, especially in their early stages when they are not yet fully mastered.

To illustrate the situation, we use the case of the industrial company of Mulhouse, 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 desire, that year, to attach itself to the new French republic, into a Rhine Manchester.

Of course, and just as obviously, this example of industrial development has been forbidden by capitalism’s leaders and their cronies, because it runs radically counter to the interests of individual owners of the means of production and their shareholders, commercial banks and private central banks, and even the state, which finds no room in taxes.

To illustrate this self-confidence in economic life, we can take the example of the industrial development of the city of Mulhouse in the nineteenth century.

The logic of insurance is that members should pursue preventive efforts to limit the occurrence of risks. For example, in the early nineteenth century, elected officials in one department decided to create a fire-fighting mutual. In each village, volunteers banded together to join the mutual and help each other: when a neighbor found out 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 society is making profits from which members can decide on new objectives.

These surpluses and benefits can be used for three purposes:

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

Once prevention approaches are successfully implemented, the increased results allow equipment to be developed and maintained. 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 and mechanical engineering industries 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: at the end of each quarter, there was a balance between the amount of claims to be compensated and the total contributions. The distribution was elementary. The manufacturer could not be satisfied with this system, and Mulhouse’s owners decided to establish their own mutual insurance company.

As soon as the disaster struck, the compensation was paid and new workshops were built. The common objective was to have the least amount of fire, and measures to prevent and combat this disaster were regularly improved. A modern corps of firefighters was pooled; employers paid for fire-fighting training for workers, and they financed the construction of new fire halls with the best equipment. These fire stations were shared with the city for public fire-fighting and first aid, particularly of course in the new working-class cities.

Soon, in these new factories with little fire risk, manufacturers were able to invest the pooled funds to increase the productivity of their machines. Once the fire damage was eliminated, insurance became an investment bank on terms set by the manufacturers themselves – that is, with a zero lending rate independent of monetary policy, and the administration fees were already paid at the insurance level. The loan rate to invest was zero! No bank could match these requirements, and the mutual insurance company, capable of providing both banking and insurance services, was the bedrock of Mulhouse’s industrial boom.

The Mutuel La Mulhousienne insurance bank managed by the Société Industriel.

From 1861, when industrialists obtained in Biarritz, by tenacity, the decree of Napoleon III publicly authorizing the Mulhousienne to carry on its business of bank-insurance, a second phenomenon amplified the dynamism of this financial structure. From all over Europe, industrialists convinced of the merits of this system joined the mutual.

When there was excess revenue over losses, and this system could only achieve this result because it only brought together members who were engaged in firefighting, the available money was first used by the founders in Mulhouse to develop their industries. Since then, these industrialists on behalf of Koechlin, Dollfus, Thierry Mieg, Schlumberger, Hartmann have given a national and global dimension to their activities.

The mutualist society did not achieve this level of development because that was not the aim of the society, which was aimed at the expansion of industrial enterprises and not at the development of a financial organization capable of cutting itself off from its source of food until it came to direct it in order to give priority solely to its objectives of financial profitability at the expense of the future of industries or the tertiary 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 was the founder of SACM, the founder of what was then the CGE, France’s largest private-sector industrial group in the 1970s. The ‘Al’ of Alcatel or Alsthom comes from Alsace, from Mulhouse. The principal leaders of Mulhouse’s industrial society were Protestant and here we also find a living trace of the Protestant movement and the social dimension that this movement wanted to build by making material productions to improve the lives of the people.

Belfort and Alsthom.

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

The Centennial Strike, which broke out on 27 September 1979 in Belfort, has forged a mindset that will continue to be measured today. She was born of profound humiliation. Despite the fact that Belgian wages are 30% lower than those of Le Bourget since the creation of Alsthom-Atlantique three years ago, management has made many mistakes. She had the factory painted, planned a banquet and offered each worker a choice of pen, watch, bottle of cognac or souvenir medal.

Behind the slogan “no medal, the thirteenth month!”, the interunion’s response was scathing: Giscard’s factory, symbolic of France’s powerful railroad and nuclear power, was occupied for 58 days, in the name of dignity. From worker to manager, all mobilize with public support. Nearly 15,000 people march during the “Dead City” operations on October 12 and 24, to the sound of the famous “Red Rag”. The local left, which is in charge, helps the strikers financially, as well as the banks, while the right calls for compromise. Jean-Pierre Chevènement, then a member of Parliament, summed up this incredible confrontation in one sentence: “In Belfort, we are not used to bending our heads”. “For the Belfortians, Alsthom is the heart of the city; the factory belongs to them.” Perhaps the prefect knew the culture of Mulhouse’s industrial society and how Protestants organized their businesses as a common good among leaders and workers.

The first TGV 001 prototype powered by a gas turbine, came out of the Alsthom workshops in Belfort on October 25, 1971 with a little delay. At the beginning of the centennial strike, a group of angry workers blew up the oar’s head cabin. Trade unionists prevented the plasticising of the second cabin by intervening in time to remove explosives from a quarry in the area. After the damaged cab was repaired, the paddle was allowed to sneak out of the factory on October 25, but the celebration for the official opening of the prototype’s exit could not take place. It’s this leading motor that’s on display at 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’ delay, this did not prevent this train from breaking the world record for autonomous train speed (318 km/h on 8 December 1972), the record of the kind it still holds in 2016. The driver was a Belfortain railway worker and the record was broken on the Landes line.

This unique episode to challenge a Parisian General Directorate, 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 its “h” in 1998, following yet another capitalist restructuring. This “h” of the ancient Thomson allied to the Alsatian society of the beginning, is then more than a letter. To the “Alsthomas,” it symbolized humans in a decaying industrial empire. This “h” stroke experienced as an amputation even gives rise to a play.

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

The business risk insurance approach.

Such insurance takes many forms in the life of firms today, which behave more like networks of skills than systems of power beholden to the capitalist economic system.

Assurance is built when prevention approaches are numerous, coherent, and strategic.

An IT company that sells solutions to its customers (like SAS) needs to retain people, and to avoid unwanted departures, it will improve working conditions but also conserve its living resources: it is not possible to use intellectual resources beyond a certain time. 32 hours a week is sufficient when the employee can adjust his working time according to his availability and physical fitness.

Removing time-consuming routine tasks is a good way to help the worker focus on his or her work. From then on, the workplace becomes a campus on which working time and daily life, or even family life, mix together when facilities for catering, childcare, sports and relaxation are nearby. The employee will be at his office for 32 hours but will be present on campus for almost 50 hours a week and 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 covers all economic activity. But we still need to reach an agreement.

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

Each activity must be managed in isolation: insurance must make a profit and industry must make a profit, because at each stage the state collects taxes and the banks their interest. The benefits of the fire insurance mutual can no longer be used directly by manufacturers to develop their businesses, because this eliminates some of the taxes that the state may levy.

Moreover, this logic is not conducive to the development of investment banking, and it runs counter to speculation in financial markets. But this very effective and equally efficient logic has the great wrong to crowd out the state and push out traditional banks.

Public authorities should also beware of such networked practices, because the rapid and extensive development of networked enterprises results in economic entities that can rule local politics without the help of the professional politicians who drive the representative political system.

But it should be pointed out that the influence of Mulhouse’s industrial society has nothing to do with the practices of the industrial barons of the metal industry, in France as in Germany, who quickly became cannon traders and came to support the warmongering parties in the conquest of political power.

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

In our system of power, leaders’ choice has been to eliminate as much as possible the non-market economy; the economy depends first and foremost 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 non-market economy creating wealth is still being rejected and prohibited by recent court decisions, we shall return to that. As a result, the pursuit of profit runs counter to a logic of insurance and prevention.

We know that housing estates are built in flood-prone areas, where land was useless to farmers, and where erecting new houses can bring huge benefits to developers. Compensation for losses resulting from repeated floods quickly becomes an unbearable expense for insurance companies and the community.

There are hundreds of other similarly debilitating examples of economic and social disaster. 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 networked organization does not use the distinction between public and private or the distinction between market and non-market economy.

It is based on a set of projects that converge in the realization of the answers provided when implementing the values of the culture defined by the group and we know that among these values, through the alliance of opposites, are found 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 political, economic and social life of the community. Citizen life networks are organized on the basis of mutual societies which practice risk insurance and risk prevention and, beyond that, implement solidarity processes.

The logic of insurance in risk prevention is simple to understand, the shift from insurance to solidarity is simple to explain, but in systems of power, it comes up against the many walls of policymakers’ vested interests. This group of leaders is not homogeneous in a system: politicians must resist the will of economic and financial leaders, and politicians are of different social origins and political ambitions. Such squabbles do not exist in networked organizations that coalesce around shared projects.

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

The Failure of Social Security

The biggest failure of an insurance system that has failed to evolve into a solidarity-based organization is social security in France. As early as 1945, the founders of Social Security, Pierre Laroque and others, indicated that very quickly these social protection bodies had to move from the logic of insurance to the logic of solidarity. Even if this has not been the case because of the opposition of economic managers, employers and the often ignorant attitude of employees’ representatives, we shall come back to this, we must understand here what a logic of solidarity brings in relation to a logic of insurance.

Risk prevention and solidarity.

We have seen how insurance logic in industry can lead to economies that can ensure the development of a group of companies. The success of his efforts is due to the engineers who have created their factories mastering the technologies.

Prevention efforts have focused mainly on changes in attitude: employers and workers have found a common interest in eliminating the risk of fire, the cost of non-quality production, and the development of the country. The resources used in the fire-fighting were known, it was sufficient to improve them and to use the training of the personnel.

Solidarity occurs precisely when these solutions are not available in a given environment. In the face of a risk that arises, when the group is unable to identify the means of prevention and above all the solutions to eliminate the consequences of what has just happened, to find the means to prevent this risk from recurring, we must find knowledge, we must be able to have new knowledge.

Solidarity is a sharing of knowledge.

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

Following the example of Mulhouse’s industrial society, we know that during the War of 1870, the Mulhouse 6th Line Regiment withdrew to the stronghold of Belfort to follow the military strategy then in force, and the workers of the industrial city provided a major reinforcement that kept the German besiegers in check. Then SACM (the Alsatian mechanical engineering company) moved to Belfort in 1879 to escape the German occupiers.

Solidarity allows the development of regions and the eradication of poverty and hunger, resistance against oppressor.

It has enabled many peoples to overcome the crises that threatened them, so why is it not developed to its optimum in peacetime, during periods 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 something that the other person does not have and needs is also called, in everyday language, helping or showing solidarity. But when we say that solidarity must be the logical continuation of insurance and of the preventive approach, we are highlighting another essential issue in society, in relations between social groups.

A group that develops self-confidence will become much richer, significantly better managing its resources and avoiding wasteful spending. So it can turn inward to preserve its gains. This is a time for conservatism, and above all for corporate instincts.

It is obvious that the founders of social security in 1945 knew of this difficulty, this dreaded trap on the social level.

Workers’ groups (miners, factory workers, railroad workers, managers, civil servants, teachers, peasants, and so on) were initially expected to establish their own mutual societies or social insurance companies. We know about the mutual society of teachers, etc. These mutual societies then had to federate at national level to show solidarity with the most disadvantaged social groups so as to eradicate poverty, unemployment and the situations that prevent a society from developing in a socially progressive way.

What one succeeds serves the success of the others because the objective is to raise a standard of living together, to learn, to strengthen social relations within a people and then between peoples to eliminate the risks of conflicts that sow misery, death and despair among humanity.

Combating illness, disability, accidents at work, lack of vocational training, taking into account maternity, physiological needs for rest and holidays, retirement, are objectives for all social groups that use common resources and methods: hospitals, crèches, schools, retirement homes, training centers, leisure centers, etc.

But that is not the case politically. In the second part of this book, we will return to our reading of the causes that prevented this transition, this evolution of the insurance state of the late 19th century towards a solidarity French republic. We can already make it clear that French workers and citizens alike have not paid for the damage caused by these calamitous political policies for more than a century.

The defense of the profits of the owners of the means of production and the interests of the bourgeoisie has justified for the political leaders the non-financing of a universal social security system capable of real economic and social solidarity. Each industrial or commercial branch has financed its social security system according to its financial characteristics and its level of risk of accidents at work. There are the rich branches: chemistry, metallurgy in the period of the steel industry, mining and modest branches such as textiles, the agricultural branch…

The consequence is still found today in the pension schemes with the principle of the discount between the four major schemes: social security, agricultural scheme, scheme of self-employed workers, scheme of the public service.

For example: you work half of your mandatory period of contributions in companies and the other half in the public service as a teacher and trainer of future employees. Your Social Security pension will be reduced by 50% according to one scale and your Public Service pension will be reduced by 50% according to another scale. You have worked to get all your mandatory contribution quarters but you have changed your plan! That is not good because the financial health of a plan requires you to stay in the same plan for your entire professional career, otherwise there will be a shortfall in contributions to pay for the pensions of that pension plan.

This is proof that this pension system is corporate, not universal at all, that it belongs to the employers of these plans. The state is absolving itself of its responsibility by starting by acknowledging that it is up to each pension scheme to provide its own funding… to the detriment of occupational mobility and the raising of the level of skills, we will come back to this.

Everyone must remain in their place in a system of power and changing their place is not accepted by the leaders of a system of power. Pierre Legendre, whom we quoted in our introductory chapter on the poet’s mission, understood this well and highlighted it.

But nothing has changed so far and the trade unions are either blind or blind ignorant and deaf not to understand why they were chosen to participate in this joint management of Social Security taking care not to contradict the interests of the employers!

The direct consequence of this management of pension schemes without solidarity is experienced by millions of pensioners. One of our neighbors is a very obvious case: he worked in a factory since he was 16 years old, then as a farmer and ended up being a lumberjack selling firewood. So 3 discounts: that of the Social Security, that of the Agricultural Social Mutual Society, that of the RSI, Social Regime of the self-employed. As a result, his retirement pension is about 800 euros per month, or about 200 euros more than the RSA for having worked every required mandatory quarter, without unemployment. For now, in retirement, he continues to sell firewood by asking to be paid in cash, so as to obtain additional income. But the day he can no longer work and sell wood…?

We might as well leave this system of power which rejects solidarity and prefers to retain fiercely its 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.

We have shown in Part 2 the refusal by employers to share with workers the productivity gains obtained by the work of all. It is the revolt of the Canuts of Lyon as early as 1830 will highlight this logic of the capitalist system, this will of employers private owners of the means of production to keep for themselves the wealth produced by the Labor. Nothing has changed since then.

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

We present on fileane.com the political, economic, social and cultural institutions of the Networks of Life.

Solidarity does not occur only in the 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 possesses knowledge or know-how that is able to help a different group in need. At the economic level, the Total Quality approach allows the calculation of the Cost of Obtaining Quality (COQ) and the transmission of this optimal solution to other Teams of Life Projects allows the calculation of the Cost of Obtaining Solidarity (COS).

The performance is all the more excellent as the provision 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 on to adapting this solution to its local circumstances. This saves time and resources.

Solidarity increases productivity gains.

The sources of productivity gains are then higher 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 solidarity is in place, standards of living can manage the commons and a full currency without debts. In our fourth part we will show how we intend to put in place these new solidarity within the organizations in network within the framework of an Art of Living in a humanist civilization.

We have developed this case of the development of the Mulhouse industrial company. 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 in Belfort where remains of the Rhine culture, humanist and Protestant, of the industrial society of Mulhouse.

The two pillars that emerged from it, Alsthom and Alcatel, will be 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, a full currency that financed the reconstruction and then the industrial and economic, social development of the country. We presented this example in the previous chapter on Life Project Teams

We also discussed this in the poet’s speech to the Free City of Belfort in the spring of 2019 during protests against measures to dismantle gas turbine skills.

A limit to solidarity: the gap between technologies, for example the Thomson-CSF LCD patent.

Alongside these technology-related risks, such as the fire risk from the 1810-1820 explosion of steam engines, is the risk of ignorance or the impossibility of using a patent because the innovation is too far ahead of the available technology.

And the risk of a misguided technological revolution is greatly increased by policymakers’ ignorance or misjudgment. In France we are unfortunately so far customary to the fact.

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 Mulhouse’s industrial company, we find here catastrophic management errors and policy decisions that will result in the non-use of this patent in French industry and the loss of a real opportunity to develop a worldwide mass-market production.

Here we summarize the Thomson case presented in the Training section of fileane.com that the reader may wish to browse for further details and details.

Initially, there is a patent on liquid crystal displays, flat screens, developed in 1960 by the Japanese company SHARP and the American company RCA, the world leader in cathode-ray television. From the 1960s until the advent of microcomputers equipped with computers with powerful microprocessors, this patent could not be used, particularly on large computer systems IBM or others. Even the very powerful central computer could not handle the billions of pixels of the thousands of screens connected to it at the same time.
In the late 1980s, with the arrival of powerful microprocessors, it became possible to use flat screens with new microcomputers. This is of interest to project teams that develop weapons systems with screens mounted on aircraft, submarines or any type of military equipment.

In France, Thomson-CSF is developing weapons systems for the Rafale and the new SNLEs (nuclear-powered missile-launching submarines). The experts of the group know that this patent on flat screens becomes indispensable and the development of 16/9 television, the improvement of the image quality of television screens, other projects of the Thomson group mainstream, everything pushes the General Directorate to seize the opportunity of the acquisition of RCA, industrial giant of television but whose financiers do not want to bear the huge costs of its technological transformation or simply because they do not know that RCA owns the famous patent on liquid crystal screens.

As soon as RCA’s purchase was concluded in 1988, the first liquid crystal displays were produced in the cleanrooms of Saint-Éstrike, near Grenoble. New clean rooms because the old ones are sent to other laboratories of the group and especially to Sophia-Antipolis. In 1990, liquid crystal displays were used for the Rafale and the control room of the SNLE. But it seems that production will stop there, as part of the ongoing military secrecy surrounding the weapons programs, or at least as part of a more general-public version that has not been implemented.

It is true that the extra cost of this equipment with these new technologies compared to the older specifications used as a basis for public financing immediately posed serious political problems for 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.

This is where the patent on liquid crystals is probably not used in the production of flat screens for other industrial equipment and the general public. Governments have been unwilling to borrow to finance the development of these new technologies, which were surely chastened by the devaluation of the franc in 1983 and the presidential desire to implement the euro successfully with strong-franc policies in the 1990’s.

Ignorance about new technologies has led policymakers to the outrage that France has lost its unique opportunity to become a global flat-panel leader.

Did the leaders of high finance know about this and take advantage of it to cause our country to fall into this scandal, that this production of flat screens is being 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 Chairman, Thierry Breton, to launch a production of liquid crystal screens for the EAA and EDF’s French nuclear power stations, a monumental management error, certainly alerted the competitors, and in particular SHARP, who owned the co-ownership of this patent, hence the development of this production by Thomson’s direct competitors… who found the sources of financing from banks and high finance, but not the French public industrial group whose political leaders and employers wanted it to disappear and be sold by apartments to private investors.

It is true that since 1973, when the financing of the economy was abandoned by means of treasury bills and this quasi-full currency, the obligation imposed on European governments to finance themselves on the financial markets and from the private central banks of the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy, has condemned public companies, particularly French ones, to ask for substantial public aid to secure their investments.

So business goes in the liberal capitalist system of power. The governments of the right no longer wanted to pay a single Franc in public companies that only had debts, a false argument to conduct the policy of privatization for which they had been elected… and paid by the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy.

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.

Solidarity is guaranteed in the use of the full currency and bills of exchange or work orders

Current trade law provides for solidarity through the endorsement of a bill of exchange. The holder of the bill of exchange (the drawer), in order to be protected in the event of non-payment by the drawer, can ask for the endorsement of this bill of exchange by a guarantor who undertakes to help the drawer to pay for him, if necessary.

In the operation of a full currency, the circulation of a work order or bill of exchange indicates the nature of the work and the amount of money intended to carry out this work. Several stakeholders can participate in this achievement. The bill of exchange then presents the various coupons intended for each of these players.

In the event that one of them is defaulting as a result of a diversion of the remaining money to complete the work, any of the other interveners can take action against him, and those downstream, that is, those who were supposed to intervene after the defaulting intervener, have a right to ask one of the upstream interveners to pay for another intervener to replace that defaulting intervener.

In principle, it will be the intervener who has already completed his share of work and who has been paid on the discount of his coupon by the bank of the Free City who will immediately ensure the replacement of the defaulting intervener and the payment of the work provided for at this stage. When the work is completed, all stakeholders will share the additional costs of this replacement and all will take legal action to convict the stakeholder who committed this misappropriation of the money allocated to him. With the sum obtained at the time of the conviction, each person will be reimbursed for the additional cost incurred.

In the event that the worker is in default and can escape his civil and professional liability, the other workers may be called together to eliminate this malfunction and to ensure that the work can continue. We are here under the responsibility of all the stakeholders who are supposed to carry out the work. The objective is to help each other so that not everyone has to bear additional expenses because of one or more of them.

Hence the obligation in a project team to work together throughout its realization.

The use of full currency brings the benefit to this project team that each member does not need to make a financial contribution to pay for equipment and intermediate consumption before being paid at the end of their work share. The project approved by the local assembly of the political action and budgeted by the free city or the Confederation then makes it possible to create the Work Order or the bill of exchange with its various coupons. This eliminates financing needs and cash flow issues. We are no longer under private personal ownership but under common ownership.

We will see later the chapter on the creation and management of the Mint Full, without debts.

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

Step 1: List the main risks and provide financial security in case of disasters.

This guarantee is provisioned according to the work, skills, resources needed to eliminate the risk and/or repair the disasters that have occurred. In short, the task is to plan 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 done, his remuneration will take place in full currency. In the event that these risks have been avoided or their consequences minimized, the project team realizes savings on its budget and this profit, at the end of the project, will serve as financing for 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.

We shall see below the use of the Plan as a major instrument in the Networks of Life to steer human activity in the production and distribution of wealth as well as in the organization of work and the raising of the level of skills. This Plan is obviously also the management tool of the Mint full, without debts. We’ll get to that.

Step 2: Significant, serious and fatal risk must be ruled out

either permanently because it constitutes a serious threat to life and survival, or temporarily because the innovation cannot be used by the technologies in the light of the knowledge currently available, it is a question of evaluating the work and resources necessary to remove this patent, this innovation, this technology, this knowledge which is harmful to life and survival.

This risk discovered during the implementation 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, teams of life projects, free cities, confederation.

These political institutions, through the political action of the citizens, define the conditions under which this risk and this knowledge are kept secret and the legal and military means to defend this keeping away of knowledge and this secret.

Here we have this policy based on our two sources of knowledge for putting the sword under the guard of the sacred, a policy already practiced in antiquity in the temples of the banks of the Nile or in the clearings of the forests by the Celtic Druids. The work and resources needed to realize this policy of de-risking risks that cannot be eliminated and minimized are financed by using the currency full of no debt.

This shunning and secrecy of the most harmful and destructive technologies for life on Earth is not implemented in power systems. On the contrary, their leaders are abandoning themselves in an unlimited arms race, especially in the nuclear field.

The neo-liberal ideology led by the Anglo-Saxon puritan sect is no longer hidden in Agenda 2030, for example, to explain how it intends to take up the criminal Malthusian theses to drastically reduce the level of the human population and that of certain animals, in order to guarantee elected officials who follow their divine directives the opportunities to live in peace without being threatened by the reprobate who do not follow their divine directives.

To limit the level of the population, medical tyranny is no longer limited to the reduction of the means of medicine and the disorganization of hospitals. It uses biological and genetic weapons developed by the pharmaceutical giants of which they are shareholder owners.

We will present this history of medical tyranny and its weapons in Part 2 The functioning of the Power Systems. These range from GMOs, to the use of viruses or the use of industrial food products harmful to Health.

Step 3: Disseminating the optimal solution

and the knowledge that make up it, is one of the responsibilities of political institutions, especially of the Confederation which manages the technical documentation and gathers the decisions taken in the Networks of Life for the satisfaction of 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 members of the Confederation of Networks of Life and corresponds to the economy of donation.

Requests addressed to the Confederation by external organizations are examined and met in exchange for the signature of a Peace Treaty with the Confederation, and the counterparties participate in the political, economic and social development of all the 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 of solidarity is then taken into account by the political institutions that have achieved them, and these evaluations are then consolidated at the level of the Confederation.

Step 4: Evaluating the cost of obtaining solidarity

We are then here in the case of an evaluation 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 internal solidarity benefits and external solidarity costs is established annually by the Confederation. It serves to define the development axes of the Networks of Life against the systems of power throughout the planet Earth and its present humanity.

This calculation of the Cost of Obtaining Solidarity is presented in the chapter on the Total Quality Approach.

Synthesis Diagram

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

The development of risk insurance and then the development of Solidarity, which shares the optimal solution and its adaptation to local circumstances, are therefore the basic principles of economic institutions. We can now continue this presentation of the various economic institutions.

The Total Quality approach, the next chapter, applies this consideration of risks and malfunctions to put in place prevention measures and investments to eliminate them. This optimal solution obtained by a team of life projects is then shared with those who need it and the Confederation manages a technical documentation that gathers all these advances in the development of the Life Networks.

Sources

• La Société Industrielle de Mulhouse
• Mulhouse, ville industrielle
• Mulhouse et la mécanique
• les industriels de Mulhouse, la famille Koechlin
• la S.A.C.M.
• La famille Dollfus
• D.M.C à Mulhouse et à Belfort
• La logique du système capitaliste, la révolte des canuts de Lyon

Sources

• Les équipes de projets de vie
• La démarche Qualité Totale
• Le travail dans les Réseaux de Vie
• La déclaration des droits à la vie sociale pour les êtres humains
• La monnaie pleine
• Les Biens Communs, définition et gestion de hier à aujourd’hui
• Le discours du poète à la ville libre de Belfort