Part 1 – Institutions of life networks

The complementarity between the 3 forms of property.

the implementation of the alliance of opposites and the priority given to common property.

The main cause of the failure to move from insurance to solidarity in systems of power is the conflicts that exist between the three forms of property. These conflicts do not exist in networked organizations.

Since the establishment of royal absolutism after the destruction of the Order of the Temple on Friday, October 13, 1307, the common property managed directly by the members of the social group has been prohibited and since 1789 this prohibition has not been abolished, on the contrary, the primacy accorded to private property has been extended to the means of production of industrial society with all the harmful political, economic and social consequences that we still suffer.

The legal concept of property, its usefulness.

In a corporation, property is used to determine liability and the nature of damage that opens the liability action to compensate or compensate for that damage. It makes it possible to measure the consequences of violence that occurred despite the exercise of the mission of authority and the sought minimization of violence.

In an ideal world without violence, it is possible to imagine the absence of property. A certain philosophy complacent with this kind of ideals and utopias is then used to develop the concept of alienation. Property thus becomes a source of alienation for the human being and here we find Marxist ideology and doctrine. But by obscuring the relationship between violence – mission of authority – responsibility – property, these philosophers and ideologies have already led humanity to the worst war crimes, genocides and crimes against humanity. Without property, there is only the irresponsibility of everyone, especially those of tyrants, despots and criminals of all kinds.

The organization of power and command, i.e. a political regime, will determine the relations between the three forms of property and select one or the other as the basis of the society it wants to develop.

In keeping with the mission of authority which serves as the foundation for the Citizen Life Networks, the political regime of participatory local direct democracy, which we call the Life Networks, determines a property right in conformity and in coherence with the two fundamental values of humanity: love and peace. That is what we are going to develop.

Property rights have two aspects: its constituent elements and forms.

The components of property rights are not discussed. There are three: the right to use the thing (the usus) , the right to benefit from the fruits of the thing when one gives the use of this thing to someone else (the fruits) and the right to dispose of the thing i.e. the right to sell or destroy it (the abuse).

But when it comes to forms of property rights, the issue is far more contentious.

There are three possible forms: individual ownership, common ownership managed by the group, collective ownership managed by other members outside the group in the name of the general interest which must bring together citizens and their leaders.

Politicians choose the form of property that serves their interests.

One of the first tasks of those in power is to select the form of property rights they want to use.

To control and decide everything, they tend to develop collective property by developing an ideology that serves their interests. The most complete stage of this collective management of property was the communist system of power and the fascist, Nazi or dictatorship systems. The use of nationalizations also illustrates this use of collective property to defend the general interest.

Democracies have chosen to give priority to individual property, but this is one of their weaknesses because the representatives of the citizens must quickly admit their powerlessness since they cannot limit the will of the wealthy to become ever richer.

In our third part we will show that the conflicts between networked organizations and power systems are mainly based on the conflict between these three forms of ownership. At the moment we can note that there is a very close relationship between the form of power and the form of property used.

Property and peace.

In matriarchal organizations and in people with few resources, the needs of group survival require the use of common property managed directly by group members at the local level. In our fourth part, we will illustrate this point through the example of the Moso people and the example of the indigenous people of the Trobriand Islands described by Malinowski. This social reality is clear: in order to establish the values of peace and love, to maximize civil peace and minimize violence, common property is the only one capable of providing the conditions conducive to group cohesion.

The common property

is essentially based on material, tangible goods which are most often passed down from generation to generation: real estate, houses, production equipment: agricultural tools, fishing boats, cooking or food preservation equipment, real or movable defenses, means of health.

The management of this common property is essentially based on the right of use, the usus. This management is simple, obvious, understood by all. The right to use the proceeds of these immovable property is almost non-existent and the right to dispose of these immovable property poses no difficulty: property built by one generation will obviously benefit subsequent generations who will be enriched by this capitalization of real estate by adding new constructions for the benefit of the group, the city, the region…

There is therefore no discussion on the distribution of the wealth produced: the buildings built are used to develop the safety, comfort and standard of living of the group and future generations. We will see in our third part how the Order of the Temple managed to finance the construction of cathedrals and the network of commanderies and temple houses as well as the development of free cities in relation to the property of kings.

Individual property

It may not exist as in the case of the Moso people, it is a radical solution to eliminate the sources of domestic and daily conflicts and to promote lasting peace and love. Among the indigenous people of the Trobriand Islands, ownership of agricultural land is individual, as it rewards families who are most involved in clearing land and maintaining it in the face of the threat of the jungle. But it is women together who cultivate the land and the sharing of the harvest is done in proportion to the area of individual properties. The larger the family, the more land it must clear to survive, this rule is based on common sense and a rudimentary logic that everyone can understand.

Collective property

in these peoples represents the body of knowledge used, the legends that structure the history of the people, the sacred knowledge that make up medical knowledge or the use of plants for healing, as well as the spiritual knowledge related to the mysteries of death.

This collective intellectual property ensures the social links between the different villages of the same people. It embodies the culture shared by these social groups and generates a different human utility from the work done for the development of individual or common property.

In principle, the tasks which guarantee the development of collective property are entrusted to persons who have received a very advanced education, in particular through spiritual initiation, and who have also received a long and complete training to lead them to a level of expertise in the use of intellectual knowledge: technical and cultural scientists. The group members working on the development of collective intellectual property correspond to what we now call managers responsible for creating and developing group culture: its values, social norms and ways of life. These people receive a delegation from the group to develop their expertise in this knowledge: they are exempted from the work that ensures the survival of the group, they become free in the sense of ancient greek, egyptian civilizations…

The social risk is known: these educated people can misuse knowledge to develop an ideology that serves their personal interests and their despotic conquest of power to turn networks of life into autocratic or even tyrannical systems of power. It is usually the spiritual masters and poets who denounce these tyrannical drifts and who oppose these ideologies and systems of power.

Complementarity between the three forms of property.

Networked organizations to realize the values of peace and love, of solidarity, develop common property for all that touches the material elements of human existence and make the choice to use collective property for all the intangible elements related to the management of skills and knowledge. We have seen before that handing over knowledge to a group that does not yet have it represents the main mark of solidarity at the social level. Individual property then complements the social organization whenever it is necessary to reinforce the impact of common and collective property; otherwise, individual property is useless as it represents the major source of conflict in the group by generating daily material quarrels about particular corporeal property.

The characteristic of power systems is that they prohibit common ownership. Indeed, system leaders are looking for ways to become ever richer in order to further increase their power over the rest of the social group. Common ownership corresponds to a fair sharing of the wealth produced by the members of the group and therefore it actually prohibits the enrichment of one relative to the other. Only individual property allows for the enrichment of one relative to the other. It is then sufficient for the leaders of the power systems to seize collective property by imposing their ideology, to lock their system and prohibit any questioning of this unequal sharing of the wealth produced by the whole group.

In this collective property developed by the leaders of the system, knowledge will be limited to dogmas, myths, the development of utopias to make social groups believe that the functioning of this system of power is legitimate. This manipulation of knowledge leads to very limited, sometimes erroneous knowledge and programs marked by the dominant ideology in the education system. The introduction of prohibitions and knowledge taboos related to networked organizations further strengthen this system of power by creating ignorance among group members about the alternative of networked organization and primarily about the possibilities offered in a social organization by common ownership in the equitable distribution of wealth. We will denounce the myths and utopias of our political, economic and social system when we expose the functioning of the systems of power in our second part.

This complementarity between the 3 forms of property distributes the main roles played by each of the three elements of property rights. Each shape prioritizes a different element. This complementarity is organized in a network as follows:

Property rights in social life networks: components and forms.

  • Usus: right to use the thing.
  • Fructus : right to receive fruit or to enjoy income from the thing.
  • Abusus : right to dispose of, sell or destroy the thing.
Type of propertyProperty rightsUsusFructusAbusus
individualthe natural person, the couple. the experimental company that is looking for the optimal solution.secondary right:

It’s natural and it’s not challenging, but it’s not the most important thing at this level. it is the logical consequence of the desire to belong to a group or to found a group.
secondary right

it depends on the contractual will.
main right:

it is recognized in the couple: each of the spouses through his gifts takes care of developing the property that is the property of his partner.
It is a sign of love and esteem. The way in which the person disposes of his assets determines his social status and his reputation. This experience will be enhanced by responsibilities in the management of common and collective property.
commonfamily, business, local social groups, local exchange groups, networksmain right

the members of the group shall use the material goods: house, household goods, equipment goods, production goods. They work to increase the value of this common heritage, which provides them with material security if their personal assets are destroyed by force majeure.
secondary right

each member of the group has the benefit of part of the income and can pass that on to their loved ones. These rights are at the origin of the capitalization of social rights in a non-market economy.
non -existent right

Pooled assets are passed on to the next generation or devolved to the organization that follows the first at the local level.
The common property remains attached to its original geographical level, it is immovable by destination.
A group cannot be robbed of its common property, otherwise it is a case of looting in the context of a war.
Collectivethe people, the nation, confederation of networkssecondary right

each individual, alone or in a group, experiences and cultural values, humanists to develop them and minimize collective violence
main right

the management of cultural values that bring together individual or social group purposes benefits all members of the organization.
These cultural goods, these social values are often inherited in whole or in part from previous generations and are passed on to subsequent generations.
The example of a social group can be used as a frame of reference by other groups which will adapt it to their local particularities.
non -existent right

no power can appropriate the values of a people or impose its ideology on people, let alone send human beings to their deaths to impose their values on others.

We will see in our fourth part how the movement in social life networks intends to establish this complementarity between the three forms of property rights.

Continue reading