PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPT

The bubble is common and vital

The planet has become so fragile and so small that it can be likened to a soap bubble threatened to burst at any moment. Our destiny is shared and uncertain, as we are threatened by natural perils (climate disruption), artificial ones (pollution), economic and social ones (intolerable impoverishment).

The saving solution must be acceptable by all and for all. No more half-measures. How can we tolerate that nearly 60% of the world’s population will soon lack access to drinking water? And yet, wealth and technological innovations are utterly disproportionate compared to the social situation. The bubble must crystallize!

Presentation

We are aware of being liable to utopianism, but we would so much like the rich to become ever richer while creating new rich people.

The name SURNUMERISM is new to dictionaries and encyclopedias, and its concept is new as well, although it is nothing revolutionary: it is a synergy of ancient concepts. A receptive state of mind.

We dare to hope that everyone, from the most unrefined among us to the most powerful in this world, will develop an attentive conscience and a non-passive metamorphosis for a more viable shared future.

Analysis of the global situation

At the dawn of this new millennium, it must be acknowledged that humanity suffers from countless social, ideological, and religious disparities, whose Gordian knot is the economy.

As long as inequalities keep increasing between North and South, between citizens of the same country, and ultimately as long as the rich keep getting richer, we will face tensions whose foundation is essentially economic, regardless of the form (immigration, ideologies, religions, trade unionism, armed rebellion, etc.) through which individuals express their despair.

Soon, the world will become unlivable even for the rich, forced to lock themselves away, and the decline of this wonderful civilization appears inevitable.

And yet, scientific and technological progress, never before equaled in human history, promised something entirely different. Human resources, means of production, and natural resources are practically unlimited, but humanity finds itself trapped by human egocentrism, because the sharing of goods and knowledge is not natural to humankind.

So, what can be done?### Human Mind

As stipulated, our civilization is sufficiently powerful in terms of human and productive means to satisfy all material needs. However, shortcomings (pauperization) and societal disorders threaten us.

• Why are there unemployed people and even homeless individuals in abnormal proportions in industrialized countries?
• Why do entire nations languish in total misery, even though they possess significant mining or mineral resources?

And yet, the economy is not in recession. The world moves forward, and wealth accumulates. However, the vast majority of the population remains excluded from enjoying these goods, as they are concentrated in the hands of a minority, despite economic liberalism and privatizations.

Thus, the first counterproductive factor in man is his conflicting relationship with others. Humanity has indeed progressed, but the human mind has remained clouded in its refusal to admit coexistence and, above all, the notion of sharing (mutual interest).

Difference must be perceived as complementarity. The community of interests must be paired with a communion of minds. In the absence of social fraternity, let us at least make room for a fraternity of interests.

Philosophers, sociologists, psychiatrists, religious thinkers, and other intellectuals or conscientious objectors should strive to reconcile man with himself, for is not revulsion toward the other a negation of oneself? In any case, one fact is evident in the context of globalization: the survival of all depends on the reciprocity of interests.

Humankind must understand that individualism has now become fatal.

Our postulate is that the rich must generate new rich people, and not merely wealth for their own ends.

ECONOMIC CONCEPT

Introduction

Humanity has experimented, willingly or by force, with various economic and financial theories that have had very diverse outcomes.

We will not dwell on certain ancient economic practices that have passed, such as barter, slavery, or colonialism, or even the bourgeoisie, which were based on the subjugation of one group by another.

We are interested in more progressive practices that are more respectful of human rights. Let us not be blinded by a conflictual perspective toward this or that entity. We aim for a symbiosis of humankind, disregarding ethnic, cultural, ideological, or religious disparities in favor of global material fulfillment.

Finally, we will focus on liberalism and collectivism, which are the main contemporary economic systems and which have indeed enabled major economic progress, even though shortcomings and flaws have tarnished or even distorted their applications.

We propose an alternative to these extremes.### Collectivism

Collectivist ideologies have unfolded with much social turmoil, as they often manifested through authoritarian regimes called revolutionary, which wiped out the entire socio-cultural and even theological foundations of the societies they claimed to reform into a monolithic bloc under a single iron dome.

These regimes have lost momentum due to social failure as much as economic bankruptcy, since the human mind finds it discouraging to be reduced to the lowest common denominator.

However, one must distinguish between communism, which proved extremist in applying this vision, and socialism, which is practiced even in the most industrialized Western societies. Here, the idea is to nationalize certain sectors considered vital, which remain under the discretion of the State, while leaving free enterprise for the rest of the economy.

On the social level, economic uniformity has proven to be a hindrance to individual fulfillment, leading to the implosion of the system.

The example of the USSR is enlightening.

Liberalism

Liberalism has greatly shaped the face of the contemporary world and is highly fashionable. Here, the principle is to maximize the individual in the distribution of wealth. Unlike collectivism, public good is reduced to its simplest expression in order to allow, through partial or total privatizations, private actors to hold market shares in all sectors of the economy. The State withdraws from entire areas of the economy.

Privatization fosters the emergence of a class of businessmen who, too often, dictate the fate of thousands of individuals, who, in order to protect themselves, often form unions to defend their particular interests. Thus, two rival worlds coexist.

However, while some have the opportunity to accumulate wealth indefinitely that they will never be able to consume, the multitude is condemned to a precarious social situation that persists.

Conclusion

We now stand at a crossroads.

Collectivism has shown its limits, for with the fall of the Soviet Union, the absurd proof was made that the lack of sharing of goods and power leads to a social dead end. China is undergoing a mutation toward controlled liberalism, hence its relative flourishing. The individual must assert himself economically.

Thus, liberalism seems to be the solution, but as wealth piles up in restricted hands to the point that one might think the bourgeoisie has been reborn, social tensions emerge and crystallize to the extent that all the century’s disillusioned turn against the United States, which represents the pinnacle of this theory.

Terrorism, immigration, rebellions, strikes manifest everywhere to the point that the planet has become unstable and inhospitable.

Faced with the scattering of wealth among communists and the vertical concentration of goods among capitalists, we must find another system that generates wealth and distributes it to the greatest number of people within humanly acceptable timeframes.

Ultimately, we retain from collectivism: the gregarious and paternalistic instinct to regulate the community of goods for the benefit of all and each; from liberalism: man, through his individualistic subconscious, is a machine that gives his best only in the materialization of personal interest.

And above all, a notable deficiency: nowhere do community and individual interests converge. In fact, liberalism substitutes a supranational interest for that of a restricted group of individuals.

So, how can the two be reconciled?

Society is currently three-tiered:
- The industrialists: the wealthy (new bourgeoisie).
- The proletarians: destitute and marginalized.
- And an intermediate fringe of executives, who are the true intellectual engines of growth, yet disadvantaged in the distribution.

We conclude that no economic system creates synergy among all components. There exists a societal fracture between the extremes and a fatal mismatch between the true creators of wealth and a balanced distribution of goods. regional -->

SURNUMERISM

Introduction

Whether the wealth created belongs to the State or to an individual, it is simply inconceivable that the driving force behind it should not, after a certain period of time, become at least partial owner.

The employee has his salary, whether he is a laborer or an engineer, but nothing more. Even if he generates billions, it will not change his remuneration until death.

The employer increasingly becomes master of the assets, even if his empire is global, without a single cent in percentage or in kind returning to anyone who contributed to the materialization of capital.

Thus, financial capital is more valued than human capital. This is the original sin of our civilization.

In some way, it seems to me to be a form of 21st‑century slavery.

Financial Capital

The foundations of wealth sometimes matter little.

At a given moment, can we say what matters most between the one who possesses financial means and the one who can make them grow?

The financial means of an individual may have diverse origins (through labor, inheritance, diversion, luck, etc.).

The holder may grow them by himself, but what is certain is that he will need a substantial number of human resources to multiply them a hundredfold. And among these human resources, there are individuals who, through their high qualifications, are decisive.

However, while financial capital draws its determinism and legitimacy from a sometimes murky past, human capital is a value projected toward a clear and concrete future.

Once again, who will tell me, between the two complementary faces of the economic vector module, which one prevails?

Human Capital

The value of man as promoter of wealth must prevail.

The mere instinct of survival or human pride would lead us to grant preeminence to man over material, financial, or inert matter. The field theory: does the value of the field (production) depend solely on the landowner or on all the valid hands that till it? And moreover, if we consider the agronomist who, through scientific and technical input, multiplies production, what would we say?

Thus, our entire philosophy of the world of work must evolve toward a reconsideration of human value compared to material value. A rebalancing must begin so that wealth ceases to only self‑generate, but also rewards its promoter.

Man must become the new pillar of the economy.

Longevity

Human value must be rewarded in real time. For a senior executive who, after one or two decades serving a company, faces the problem of longevity:
- During the time spent at the company, the latter has accumulated sums that are out of all proportion to the meager retirement pension reserved for the executive.
- This executive is an invaluable resource who, instead of flourishing and developing his own company and thereby recruiting other executives and subordinates, finds himself and his family in precariousness. His children must restart the cycle from zero instead of building upon what their father initiated. The torch is too often extinguished.
- Therefore, a race against time is imposed upon us if we want a respectable proportion of executives to become entrepreneurial promoters.

An institutionalization of a specific economic system must be established in minds, then in customs.

The Remuneration of Work

Work that truly carries value must be rewarded beyond salary, which is a medieval notion of subsistence.

In order to enable a multiplication of wealthy individuals and not only a multiplication of wealth, we must think of a system that allows senior executives, according to a scale (Surn), to indirectly receive from their past efforts a substantial financial contribution, enabling new initiatives.

Concretely, for a given commercial entity, it should pay a substantial contribution (Surnuméraire) into a special banking institution (SurnBank) for the benefit of its senior executives. Of course, taxes such as VAT will decrease, and some will disappear, because let us not dream: macroeconomic balances are imperatives from which no one can escape.

Very indirectly, the executive will also transform into an entrepreneur. The social gain proves immeasurable.

And Society?

Do not tell me about taxes! They are the minions of the State, which drains beyond the bearable. And worse: the State is antithetical to society. Often, state institutions, far from their objectives of social synergy, exploit companies and individuals.

The State is in the hands of a highly politicized minority that falls into the pitfalls of dominating classes.

Here too, the new philosophy will lean more toward society than toward the State. The State will serve society and not the reverse, which perpetuates exploitation of the masses by a minority.

Surnuméraire

Through the surnuméraire, we aim to balance the previous equation.

This new economic theory proposes to broaden the base of wealth relative to the carrying individuals (vectors), because the systems already in use create dynamics without worrying about the distribution of goods.

Thus, goods will be distributed partly to their true promoters and not exclusively to their initiators.

For this, humanity must make an evolutionary leap of several million years in mental positivism: "Integrate others as oneself." That is the most difficult. How to transcend all sociocultural, religious, and other differences and disparities? In fact, it suffices to accept the other in all his difference while keeping in mind the sole communion of interests. Each must accept the economic flourishing of the other, for it is the absolute condition of his own. Prosperity is for all on this earth or for none.

Who has failed in this if not the developed nations that hoard everything and thus crystallize all resentments? The great must set the example of sharing. Otherwise, toward what outlets or economic partners will industrialized countries turn? Their selfishness turns against their interests. Even political dialogue or correlation of societies becomes impossible. Intolerance and confrontation between nations arise.

The multiple resentments and frictions, intra‑national or international, are explained by a narrow economic horizon for many nations, societies, and individuals. To pacify is to let live and live decently.

And yet, wealth in the world continues to grow. It ends up in the hands of the rich or of States without benefiting the social mass. It is important to establish a system more capable of distributing the wealth generated. Innovative criteria must be found to achieve social balance: namely, how to draw from the rich for the benefit of the poor without major resentments? We must find intermediary agents who will bridge the two worlds. Hence the idea of favoring senior executives of companies to allow them, within an acceptable time frame, to transform into new entrepreneurs generating employment for the benefit of the masses.

Instead of companies being drained by state systems, a financial system will be set up for this intermediate class. Here is born Surnumerism: a system that generates shared work. Work regenerates itself. A hydra.

Sharing occurs naturally through work. No need to institute taxes to develop patchwork social programs.

SURNUMERISM: economic theory instituting a double remuneration for categories of workers deemed capable of promoting initiatives that carry new business modules.

The double remuneration is:
- Salary,
- Plus CapitalSurn.

CapitalSurn

CapitalSurn is the capitalization of the active work of the executive, directly drawn from the company’s income. We will have every opportunity to develop and quantify this new tool (tax) which will be made available to state authorities and multinationals in order to balance human societies, increasingly in social decline. We observe this with a triptych of evils: war, immigration, or precariousness, which affect one or another part of the world.