The idea? “Giving back to society, to Paris, to our country, what was given to us. » It’s Antoine Arnault who says it. Beautiful family motto. We imagine it adorning a bronze coat of arms on a large fireplace: “Giving back what was given to us. » We would cry with emotion…
It was on November 20 that the phrase was pronounced by the eldest son of Bernard Arnault, in a great burst of generosity and sincerity. The concrete translation of this flamboyant intention? Buy a toy: the Paris Football Club. The guy gives himself a gift and indicates that he is doing it for us. In short, we are the ones paying. And that’s exactly it, basically…
Bernard Arnould, the richest
Without comparing the two objects, this recalls the father’s approach at the time of the desolate fire at Notre-Dame de Paris, in 2019. The family and the LVMH group, this time, “in solidarity with this national tragedy”, were “associates” has “the reconstruction of this extraordinary cathedral, symbol of France…”. The day before François-Henri Pinault had announced that his father and himself had decided that their company Artémis would pay 100 million euros. But Bernard Arnault was more moved and richer: he had doubled the bet.
These are colossal sums. At this price, the others fold… Except the Bettencourts who lined up to see. In this case, no one goes all in, no one goes broke. For you, it means a lot, but it may be a detail for them…
“Thank you boss”
Only here, it should be said “thank you”, “thank you bosses”. Otherwise we would only be ungrateful at best and jealous at worst. So let’s move beyond the biting irony, which it would have been a shame to resist, to deliver five observations.
First observation: when we tell you that there is money… the proof is in place. Some families, who do not need to calculate at the end of the month, can afford compulsive purchases of a few million euros in a few hours. The amount of donations shows the power of the private sector in comparison to a State which seems to be in a powerless situation.
Second observation: the fate of Notre-Dame de Paris moves the big owners, so they give. Obviously, it’s good for their slightly damaged image – and there will be their name somewhere in a place that dominates the centuries. This doesn’t mean there isn’t genuine emotion.
Many of us were moved by this vision of Notre-Dame on fire, a wonderful common heritage classified among national assets, a symbol of all the work of workers over the decades, a mecca of our imaginations… These people have it without doubtless been too, but what to do, then, for what does not move them? Because there are things that don’t move them.
The work of capitalism
Third observation: is this money really theirs? That a few have managed to accumulate so much is not merit, it is the work of capitalism. And this wealth was not created by anything other than work. Without the work of the seamstresses of Louis Vuitton or the peasant winegrowers and glassmakers for Moët and Hennessy, there would be no capital accumulated in the coffers of the Arnault family. But of course, it’s the Arnault family who gives… Let’s add to that the colossal sum of exemptions from contributions from which they benefit (why? and for what?): we all gave, in the end.
Fourth observation: generously, several of these major donors quickly announced that they were giving up the tax exemptions promised to them by law. The law had the good taste to set a ceiling of one thousand euros, but in reality, this means that it is once again us, all taxpayers, who give what donors are exempt from.
Total amount: 18 million. This measure was taken to try to ensure that there were also “small donors” alongside the big ones, because we wanted to save the appearance of a society where some people have the means to be moved and others don’t. There were therefore ultimately 340,000 donors (but at least 700 million euros came from a handful of donors of more than 10 million).
The goodwill of the ultra-rich
Fifth observation: who decides? Should we be dependent on the goodwill of the ultra-rich, and for the projects that have their favor? Who sets the priorities? It is not a question of disputing that we have rehabilitated Notre-Dame de Paris, it is a widely shared joy. But it is a question of establishing ordinary republican functioning. Public authorities need money for heritage, but also for living culture, for schools, for infrastructure… It is better if it does not have to give alms to be able to accomplish its missions.
So let’s be proud to have renovated Notre-Dame de Paris. But to the Arnault family and others, we want to say: “Give back to Caesar, that is, give back to us (and give back)… Give back to us, not what we gave you, but what you took from us. And thank you. Thank you for highlighting the indecency of the situation. I don’t know if God will give it back to you, but the State, I don’t hope…”
—–
