PHILIPPE LANDEUX
Translated from French by Thomas Curelea
UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OF THE SOCIAL ORDER
OR
BASICS OF SOCIETY FOR UNIVERSAL USE
Extras
WHAT IS MONY?
WHAT IS CIVISM?
" Smuggle the truth through all the obstacles its enemies oppose; multiply, spread by all possible means the instructions that can make it triumph; throw by zeal and activity of citizenship the influence of the treasures and machinations lavished to propagate imposture, that, in my opinion, is the most useful occupation and the most sacred duty of pure patriotism; weapons against tyrants, books against intriguers; strength to repel foreign robbers, light to recognize domestic thieves, that is the secret to triumph over all your enemies at once.”
Robespierre
Speech on the influence of slander on the Revolution, Delivered to the Jacobins on October 28, 1792
SUMMARY
Universal Principles of the social order 1
What is Mony ? 41
What is Civism ? 55
UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES
OF THE SOCIAL ORDER
OR
BASICS OF SOCIETY FOR UNIVERSAL USE
All the Principles of social order are being trampled. This is inevitable in a monetary system (1). But today, the disorder is further aggravated by the loss of simple common sense, that common sense found in timeless sayings. Some people swear only by money, others by virtual or disembodied humanity. That the average person lacks objectivity is one thing, but to find this nonsense in laws themselves is outraging!
It’s about time we put some common sense back in the minds, starting with the basics: What is a Society? What is a Citizen? What is a right? A duty? What are the fundamental Principles of the social order? What is a law? A legislator without mastery of these notions would be a tyrannical impostor: not satisfied with his constant blather, he would condemn
(1)One only has to think about the fundamental Principles of a Society worthy of the name and the profound nature of money, its assumptions, its intrinsic mechanisms (or laws) and its natural effects to see that they are in total opposition to each other, and to understand that a "society" cannot be harmonious with an antisocial heart.
others to follow him in his delirium and to be the instruments of their loss whatever social subject we deal with, we must recognize that these notions are as essential as numbers, letters, notes or colors to calculate, write, make music or paint, and that anyone who presents conclusions in this matter that imply their ignorance or negation, conclusions that are therefore based on fallacies and not on the Principles, is equally hypocritical as it is stupid, in all cases a social scourge.
What is a Society worthy of the name? (It is necessary to specify "worthy of the name" in order for it not to be mistaken for what we nowadays sometimes call “individualistic society.")
The best way to understand what a Society is starts with looking at what its opposite is: the absence of a Society, the reign of loneliness, every man for himself with the strongest on top, what philosophers have called the state of Nature. Whatever a Society is, it goes without saying that individuals who do not form one in any respect live independently, assume responsibility for themselves, can only rely on their own strength to feed and defend themselves, are unaccountable to anyone, are not protected from anything, can do everything that a superior force does not prevent them from, in other words not much; they have many obligations, but no insurance, no rights; the price of their illusory freedom is to be permanently in danger and constantly on the look-out. The reasons that drive individuals to unite to escape the state of Nature are therefore as obvious as the benefits they seek to obtain from the Societies they form.
First observation: if individuals decide to form a Society, Societies are therefore only constituted by individuals who have made the choice to unite. Then, when a Society is formed, it can only be integrated by individuals who wish to do so and who are accepted by those who are already members. Thus, a Society is made up of individuals of the same animal species (see the second observation) but does not necessarily include all individuals of that species. Moreover, the more numerous, scattered and inevitably different the individuals of this species are in various aspects, the less likely is the case of a unified Society, and it can even be said that, without a universal common enemy from an external space, it is impossible, for union is less the fruit of will than that of necessity. A group is defined by opposition; without opposition, without superior reason to ignore differences, it is divided. It can even, when selfishness prevails over intelligence, be divided when union is required.
Second observation: Society prohibits some relationships between its members, but it cannot bring together individuals who are too different and have conflicting interests. A predator cannot be united with its prey, and vice versa. Yet individuals of one species are naturally and inevitably in one or the other of these positions vis-à-vis individuals of other species. At best, there is only indifference between them as long as they are not in competition. Conversely, Society forces its members to collaborate to satisfy their vital needs: feeding and defending themselves. Union therefore only makes sense between individuals who feed on the same things and are exposed to the same dangers. If we add the need to reproduce, which can only be met by individuals of the same species (genetically compatible), or even of the same race (living nearby and equipped with the right seduction baits), and if we consider that the family is the smallest form of Society, it is indisputable that Societies can only be constituted, in the beginning, by individuals of the same race and, in all cases, belonging to the same species. (2)
Third observation: in the state of Nature, survival of the fittest prevails. It is thus in order to be less weak that individuals join forces. A Society is a collective force designed to support power relations with the rest of the world. This collective force can be used rightly or wrongly, out of
(2) All living species are divided into subsets which, in turn, can be further subdivided. In truth, it's the same for all things. Each living species, each kind of thing contains units of various types that can form several major categories and form particular classes within these categories. Thus, the human species is subdivided into races, themselves into ethnic groups. We aren't trying to figure out the how here, just acknowledging the fact. It must also be noted that human races correspond to well-defined geographical areas, often far from each other and sometimes separated by natural borders that are almost impassable for primitive man. If it is therefore not unlikely that today's "Societies" include individuals from all over the world, it is obvious that this racial mixture could not exist in primitive Societies, since the different races then had no contact with each other, unlike ethnic groups. It follows that the present Societies which are the development of primitive Societies were built by individuals of the same race and that the racial dimension is part of their identity. The fact that people nowadays have the means to move around and join the most open Societies (because not all of them are, and the most criticized are often the least deserving of criticism from this point of view) doesn't alter the fact that the societies that welcome them, like those they've left, have a racial dimension that can be nuanced but mustn't disappear or be denied as doing so would destroy them.
objective interest or miscalculation, to defend or attack, to build or destroy; it can be contained, overpowered or crushed, but it is pointless for the weak to denounce it instead of strengthening themselves and fighting it, and for the strong to condemn it after defeating it, since only force is law and victory has already decided.
Forth observation: individuals form a Society to escape the state of Nature. New relationships are therefore established between them, but they and their Society are always in the state of Nature regarding everything that surrounds them. Thus, as long as individuals of the same species do not form a single Society, the various Societies are among themselves in the state of Nature: the weak act with caution in the absence of anything better, the strong, and those who believe they are, act as masters, good or bad. Even a single Society would still be in the state of Nature in relation to the rest of nature. The relationships that men establish between themselves only involve themselves! Societies and belonging to a Society does not stop isolated or massive attacks by other animals and does not prevent storms to blow.
Fifth observation: the biggest inconvenient of the state of Nature is the permanent danger of death, which, for living beings, is far from ideal. Therefore, the greatest benefit that individuals seek in forming a Society is not immortality, but increased safety. It is thus safe to say that individuals are driven to form a Society by an instinct for selfpreservation.
Sixth observation: in the state of Nature, survival of the fittest prevails. It follows that relationships between individuals belonging to the same Society are not based on force, but on what is commonly known as the law, that is, on at least tacit agreements that all members of the Society acknowledge, respect and guarantee. The state of law is the opposite of the state of Nature. However, we have seen that a Society is in the state of Nature in relation to everything that surrounds it. International law is therefore but an illusion: it’s a beautiful fiction that can't withstand much pressure. What's bred in the bone...
These observations make it possible to identify what a Society is, but not to define it properly. It is the mistake of 18th century philosophers, particularly Rousseau, to have followed this approach then stopped at this stage. To do this, we need to think further, read between the lines and draw all the logical conclusions from the vital union, that is, from political association.
If individuals form a Society to increase their safety, the Society has a duty to protect them so that Security is guaranteed to them as a right. This Security, consisting in not being attacked by other members and being protected against external enemies is up to the level of the Society's capabilities.
Consequences:
Now, since the Society must guarantee the Security of its members, and since it merges with them, it is ultimately up to them, the members, the Citizens, to guarantee it.
Consequences:
(3)According to the Principles of Social Order taken literally, the children, anyone who's inactive, lazy, sick, old or foreign, who doesn't participate in the life of the City, or even is a burden on it, is not or is no longer a citizen and therefore has no rights in the City. The capacities and mentality of the City may evolve to the point where it would be possible to recognize the rights of individuals belonging to these categories, or even to push to the extreme the duty of solidarity and no longer deny citizenship to some of them. Nevertheless, as far as children are concerned, they will never be Citizens, will never be considered as such and will not enjoy the rights attached to this status, they won't be granted all the rights due to their youth and their inability to exercise them, to admit that Citizens can be unequal would be to destroy Equality and Society in the name of individuals who are not even Citizens. It is therefore important not to mix up the rights that the City recognizes out of humanity to individuals unable to support themselves with those of the Citizen based on their own merit; the two are called "rights", but they do not have
These observations may lead to some confusion and raise questions. Being unable to guess all the potential questions and objections, here is at least four points that it is important to clarify.
First of all, it's been shown that there is a direct link between duties and rights, the latter resulting from the former. It is true that a right is generated by a specific duty. However, this conclusion is wrong from an individual point of view. A Citizen doesn't generate his own rights since he owes them to the duties that his fellow citizens fulfill towards him. Of course, he has the same obligations towards them. He therefore fulfills the duties that generate the rights of the same nature as those he enjoys, but he isn't the direct author of the rights he personally enjoys. But we would still be wrong to think that a Citizen wishing to enjoy only certain rights could simply fulfill the corresponding duties a priori. Being a member of the Society, belonging to the City, confers a set of obligations. There are no discounted Citizens; there are only full-fledged Citizens, equal in duties and rights, or foreigners. In other words, the
the same origin and are not of the same nature. Humanity can complete the Principles; it must under no circumstances undermine them, as that would mean cutting off the branch it is sitting on.
rights of the Citizen are the prerogative of Citizenship, which is obtained and preserved through the fulfillment of a set of duties.
In line with this reflection, it should be noted that duties precede rights and that a Society perfectly fulfills its role when it guarantees to all its Citizens all the rights that their duties generate. Equality is no more and no less than that. Therefore, acts that fall within the scope of the law should not be confused with those that don't concern it as long as they don't jeopardize the rights of others. Nor should we believe that a society is unequal or unfair because, due to lack of individual or collective capacity, the rights of its citizens are less extensive than those of another society: Equality and justice are not measured by comparison between societies, but by the duties fulfilled and the rights that must consequently be enjoyed by Citizens of the same society. These remarks make it clear that all animal Societies apply the Principles to the letter and are egalitarian (4), unlike the human concentrations baring the same name, which, always with the right word in their mouths, are all unequal and ignore the fundamentals of Equality.
The most common objection against Equality (in rights) is that it would be inconceivable because everything is different, nothing is equal in nature. Those who make such statements to support their privileges or accept their oppression all speak of rights, of society. However, the notion of right is inseparable from that of duty, which makes no sense when there's no equality. As established before, rights come from reciprocity in duties. Being equal in duties, grants both parties the same rights. Equality is mathematical! This is obvious if we reason with two individuals and remains true when Society counts millions of them, since Citizens, as many as they may be, always have the same duties towards each other and, consequently, guarantee the same rights. We can also say that, if a Citizen has duties towards the City, which is all of its fellow Citizens, the latter, therefore all of its fellow Citizens, has the same duties towards him, each having the same rights. Whether a Citizen has a single fellow Citizen or a multitude of them represented by the City, the scheme is basically the same, as are its consequences. (The question here is not why or how, inequality has entered human societies, thus giving birth to an unprecedented state, an intermediate state between
(4)The issue of dominance in social animals often distorts human judgment, forgetting that in animal societies, their members have only one right, the right to be safe (which is generally limited to being safe and, in carnivores, to be able to eat). The priorities or perks that the dominant ones may have in certain areas do not compromise the other individuals' Safety and are therefore not an infringement of the Principle of Equality.
that of Nature and Society, namely the state of Oppression which, from a distance, has the appearance of a Society but, if you look closely enough, survival of the fittest rules.)
However, it is true that individuals are naturally different. But do differences prevent associations? Is the idea that we find strength through unity a fallacy? Associations and unions do exist. It must therefore be admitted that they exist despite the inevitable natural differences between individuals, because each individual, man or woman, strong or weak, both gives and gets something out of them. Far from being an obstacle to union, differences in skills and talents, which guarantee complementarity between individuals, are an asset to the group; they are even essential to the completion of all tasks and the existence of the Society. In short, we cannot speak of rights, Citizens, or Equality, as if always in the state of Nature in which none of those exist, for these subjects clearly concern the state of Society in which all these notions are consubstantial. A Citizen is more than an individual, more than a man, more than a natural being reduced to his own forces; he's a moral being endowed with rights, the fruit of Society and its laws based on Equality. Equality is the very nature of Society; it is what distinguishes it from the state of Nature (which is not even unequal since the notions of Equality and rights do not exist there). Natural differences are therefore not an acceptable argument against social equality; they are invoked, to maintain the status quo, only by the ignorant, the tyrants and their servants.
Finally, to wrap up the question of Equality, which we say applies to duties and rights, it is imperative to introduce nuances without which applications give rise to aberrations and therefore to misinterpretations of what Equality is. In reality, there are several levels of duties and rights, three exactly: fundamental, indirect and particular. Equality applies of course to fundamental rights and duties, and also to indirect rights; it does not apply to indirect duties or to particular rights and duties. To understand this, it is first necessary to understand why there are by nature different levels of duties and rights.
The reason is simple: with regard to duties, a fundamental duty is purely theoretical and is expressed in several w