Translated by B. Kleer for CENTERFOLD Magazine, Toronto
August/September 1979

This appeal is directed to all people in the European sphere of culture and civilization. The breakthrough into a new social future can succeed if a movement develops in the European zones which, through its regenerative faculties, levels the walls between East and West, and bridges the gap between North and South. It would be a start if, let’s say, the people of Central Europe decided to act along the lines of this appeal. If today in Central Europe we commenced to live and work together in our states and societies in accordance with the demands of our time, it would have strong repercussions in every other part of the world.

Before considering the question “WHAT CAN WE DO”, we have to look into the question “HOW MUST WE THINK?”, so that the lip service that all political parties today pay to the highest ideals of mankind becomes the real thing, and is no longer belied by the actual practices of our economic, political and cultural reality.

Be warned against impetuous change. Let us start with SELF-CONTEMPLATION. Let us ask ourselves what prompts us to reject the status quo. Let us seek the ideas that indicate to us the direction we should take to make a new start.

Let us examine the concepts on which we have based our regulation of the conditions in the East and West. Let us consider whether these concepts have furthered our social organism and its correlation with the natural order of things; whether they have led us to the establishment of a healthy existence, or whether they have harmed mankind, and now put even mankind’s very survival on the line.

Through careful observation of our own needs, let us reflect whether the principles of western capitalism and eastern communism are receptive to that which, judging from recent developments, more and more clearly emerges as the central impulse in the soul of man, and expresses itself as the will to concrete self-responsibility: to be freed from a relationship founded on command and subjugation, power and privilege.

I have pursued this question patiently for some years. Without the help of many other people, whom I encountered in the course of this research and experience, I would hardly have come to the answers which I want to communicate in this appeal. Thus, these answers are not just “my opinion”; they have also been recognized by many other people.

At present, there are still too few to bring about the change right away. Their numbers must be increased. If what I am suggesting here can also be brought to bear in a political-organizational way, and can finally be applied in CONCERTED EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY ACTION, the appeal has attained its goal. It is therefore a question of a NON-VIOLENT REVOLUTION, an alternative based on an openness towards the future.

The Symptoms of the Crisis

We may assume that the problems which motivate us to reject the status quo are common knowledge. A brief summary will suffice to point out the main factors in the total problem.

The Military Threat

Even when the superpowers harbour no aggressive intentions, there is the danger of the atomic destruction of the world. War technology and weapon arsenals, stepped up to the point of absurdity, no longer permit a secure control of the total operation, which has become extremely complex. Despite the accumulated potential of the hundred-fold destruction of earth, the embittered arms race accelerates from year to year behind the facade of the so-called disarmament talks.

This collective insanity results in an incredible waste of energy and raw materials, and a squandering of the creative abilities of millions of people.

The Ecological Crisis

Our relationship to nature is characterized by the fact that it is a totally disturbed one. The complete destruction of the natural foundation on which we stand is imminent. We are well on the way to destroying it in that we maintain an economic system based on the unrestrained plundering of this foundation. It must be stated very clearly that, on this point, the economic systems of private capitalism in the West and state capitalism in the East do not fundamentally differ. The destruction is a worldwide phenomenon.

Between the mine and the garbage dump runs the one-way street of modern industrial civilization, whose expansive growth victimizes an ever increasing number of lifelines in the ecological system.

The Economic Crisis

It has many symptoms — the daily fare of newspapers and newscasts. There are strikes and lockouts; millions (speaking worldwide) are unemployed, and cannot put their abilities to work for the community. In order to avoid having to slaughter the sacred cow, the “law of the marketplace”, vast quantities of the most valuable foodstuffs, accumulated through subsidized over-production, are destroyed without batting an eyelid, while at the same time, in other parts of the world, thousands are dying of starvation.

Here it is not a question of producing to satisfy the needs of consumers, but rather, a cleverly disguised waste of goods.

This kind of management delivers mankind ever more systematically into the power of a clique of multinationals who, along with the top functionaries of the communist state monopolies, make decisions at their conference tables about the destiny of us all.

Let’s dispense with a further characterization of what is constantly being touted as the “monetary crisis”, the “crisis of democracy”, the “education crisis”, the “energy crisis”, the “crisis of the legitimacy of the state”, etc. and conclude with a brief comment on the

Crisis of Consciousness and Meaning

Most people feel that they are at the mercy of the circumstances in which they find themselves. This leads, in turn, to the destruction of the inner self. These people can no longer see the meaning of life within the destructive processes to which they are subject, in the complex tangle of state and economic power, in the diverting, distracting manoeuvres of a cheap entertainment industry.

Young people especially are lapsing into alcoholism and drug addiction, and are committing suicide in increasing numbers. Hundreds of thousands become victims of fanatics disguised as religious people. The opposite of this loss of identity of the personality is the motto: “After me the deluge” — the reckless ‘living it up’, the pursuit of instant gratification, a glib conformation in order to take, at least for oneself, what there is to get from the total senselessness, as long as life lasts, without considering who has to pay the bill.

These are accounts which must be settled by our environment, our contemporaries and future generations. It is time to replace the systems of “organized irresponsibility” (Bahro) with an alternative based on equilibrium and solidarity.

The Causes of the Crisis

To get back to the heart of the matter: We may say that two structural elements of the social orders that have come to power in the 20th century represent the actual causes of the total mess: MONEY AND THE STATE, i.e. the roles that money and the state play within these systems. Both elements have become the decisive means to power. THE POWER IS IN THE HANDS OF THOSE WHO CONTROL THE MONEY AND/OR THE STATE. The monetary concept of capitalism forms the basis of this system in the same way as the concept of the totalitarian state is the basis of communism as we have come to know it.

Meanwhile, these two ideas have been reciprocally assimilated into the concrete manifestations of current conditions in East and West. In the West, the tendency towards an extension of the state function is gaining momentum, while in the East, aspects of the money mechanism developed by capitalism have been introduced. Although clear differences do exist between western and eastern capitalism, e.g. with regard to respect for human rights, it is nevertheless true that both systems are tending increasingly towards destructiveness, and that, through their opposing powers, they threaten the future of mankind in the extreme. For this reason, it is time that “both be replaced by a new principle”, since both are “on their last legs” (Gruhl).

Among us, too, this can only be done by a change in the constitution.

The practically neurotic loyalty to the Basic Law which has developed in the interim makes us blind and incapable in face of the necessity of developing its rudiments further.

In a society that has attained a certain level of democratic development, why, in fact, should requisite further development not be openly discussed? Already, far too many are afraid that they may fall under the suspicion of being enemies of the constitution. They deny themselves even creative ideas on how to extend the concepts of justice once these have been formalized, if the progress of conscience demands it. And it does. The upshot: CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM HAVE LED MANKIND INTO A DEAD-END STREET.

As incontestable as this is, and as widespread this insight, it is still little comfort, if no models for a solution have yet been formulated; that is, ideas for free, democratic perspectives, in solidarity with nature and one’s fellow man, based on foresight and a feeling of responsibility for the future of the whole. But such models have been worked out. One in particular is discussed in the following:

The Solution

Wilhelm Schmundt demanded the “correction of concepts” as the central requirement of a sound alternative. Eugen Loebl, the economic theoretician of the Prague Spring, agrees with this when he speaks of the “REVOLUTION OF CONCEPTS” that cannot be postponed. Schmundt entitled one of his books “Revolution and Evolution”; with this, he means to say: “Only when we have effected a ‘revolution of concepts’, by re-thinking the basic relationships within the social organism, will the way be open for an evolution without force and arbitrariness.”

Unfortunately, the attitude that concepts are ‘not the point’ still lives on, often precisely in those circles that think in political alternatives. This flippant preconception must be overcome if the new social movement is to be effective and become a political force. Concepts always involve a far-reaching set of practices, and the way in which a situation is thought about is decisive for how it is handled — and before this, how and whether the situation is understood at all.

In working out the alternative, i.e. the THIRD WAY (of which the Italian Communist Party, as the first communistic party, now also speaks positively), we start with the human being. He creates the SOCIAL SCULPTURE and it is according to his measure and his will that the social organism must be arranged.

After feeling and recognition of human dignity, man today puts three basic needs in the forefront:

1. He wants to DEVELOP FREELY his abilities and his personality, and wants to apply his capabilities, in conjunction with the capabilities of his fellow man, FREELY for a purpose that is recognized as being MEANINGFUL.
2. He sees every kind of privilege as an intolerable violation of the democratic principle of equality. He needs to count as a responsible person with regard to all rights and duties — whether in an economic, social, political or cultural context –, as an EQUAL AMONG EQUALS. He must have a voice in the democratic dealings on all levels and in all areas of society.
3. He wants to GIVE SOLIDARITY AND CLAIM SOLIDARITY. That this is a prime need of contemporary man may perhaps be questioned, because egoism is by and large the dominant motivator in the behaviour of the individual.

However, a conscientious investigation proves that this is not so. It is true that egoism may stand in the forefront and determine behaviour. But it is not a need, not an ideal to which people aspire. It is a drive that prevails and rules. What is desired, is MUTUAL ASSISTANCE, FREELY GIVEN.

If this impulse of solidarity is understood to be the human and humane ideal, the mechanisms in our present social structure which activate the egoistic drive must be re-cast in such a way that they no longer work against man’s inner intentions.

The “Integral System” of new concepts of work and income.

In industrial society based on a division of labour, ECONOMIC LIFE has developed into an INTEGRAL SYSTEM, as Eugen Loebl put it. This means that when people work, they leave the private sphere, the households, and stream into the associated places of production. The products of their labour no longer reach the marketplace by a barter system through individuals or guilds; rather, they get there through a concurrence of complex processes. Each end product is the result of the joint activity of all within the framework of the WORLD ECONOMY.

All activities, including those of education, training, science, the banks, administration, parliaments, the media, etc. are integrated into the whole.

Two processes constitute the basic structure of this type of economy: the stream of CAPABILITY VALUES, which are applied at work, and the stream of intellectual or physical CONSUMER VALUES. The technical means of product must here be considered more highly developed resources.

All work is, on principle, WORK FOR OTHERS. That means that, at a certain point, every worker makes his contribution towards the creation of an item, which in the final analysis will be used up by his fellow men. A person’s work is no longer related to h&o consumerism. It is equally significant that the integral system no longer permits the workers’ income to be considered an index of the exchange value of their labour, since there is no longer an objective yardstick to determine an individual’s contribution to the production of a particular consumer item. Similarly, the objective participation of a firm in the total product cannot be determined.

If we acknowledge these realities, and do not allow ourselves to ignore them because of these interests and those disinterests, then we have to recognize that, along with the transition from the barter economy (including a money trading economy) to the INTEGRAL ECONOMY, the relationship of work/income has changed fundamentally.

If we were to follow these realizations through to their logical conclusions, this alone would cause the current economic situation to change radically. The income that people need to maintain and develop their lives would no longer be a derived quantity, but rather a primary right, a human right that must be guaranteed in order to meet the prerequisites that will enable people to act among their co-workers in a responsible and committed way.

The democratic method of agreement, based on a point of view oriented to need, is the proper principle by which to establish income as an elementary human right. The extent and type of work must also be considered and regulated by democratic society in general and workers’ collectives in particular, in accordance with their autonomous forms.

This invalidates all of today’s pressures, injustices and frustrations, which derive from the anachronism: ‘remuneration for work’. Unions and employers’ associations become superfluous. If there are differences in income, they are transparent and democratically desired by all. The socio-psychological consequences of overcoming the dependence on remuneration are also positive. Nobody buys or sells abilities and work. With regard to their income, ( \alpha \ll ) workers belong to a democratic community of citizens with equal rights.

The Change in the Function of Money

Just as the nature of work changed fundamentally during the transition to an integral economy, so, too, a metamorphosis has set in in the monetary processes. But in the same way as the concepts of the barter economy were retained to regulate the relationship of work/income, so too, these concepts remained decisive for the organization of the monetary system. For this reason, money could not be integrated as an ordering agent into the social organism.

This has prompted many analyses of money, based on psychological, sociological, economic-theoretical and other points of view. But they have all been of little use. The power of money remained unbroken. Why? Because we did not change our concept of money when historical development would have required it.

What has led to the change (so far still ignored) in the function of money? This change came about with the emergence of central banking in modern monetary development. Money was no longer part of the world of economic values, in which it had previously served as the universal medium of exchange.

The new method of issuing and managing money through the institution of central banking led to the development of a ( \textit{calculation system} ) within the social organism. Thus, like the evolutionary step in the biosphere from a lower to a higher organism, the social whole acquired a more complex form of existence. Money constituted a new functionary system. It became the ARBITER OF THE RIGHTNESS of all creative and consumer processes.

On the production end, firms require money to operate. They get it from the banking system in the form of credit (interest, today linked with the idea of credit, derives from a misunderstanding of the nature of money!).

In the hands of business, money = PRODUCTION CAPITAL is a document of law. It OBLIGATES firms to channel the capabilities of their workers into work.

When money is put at the disposal of workers in the form of income, it changes its legal meaning. As CONSUMER CAPITAL it ENTITLES the user to acquire consumer items.

The money then flows back into the production sphere and changes its meaning one more time. Now it is MONEY UNRELATED TO ECONOMIC VALUE. As such, it entitles the firms who gain it — to nothing. With it, credits are paid off, companies’ accounts are balanced at the credit banks. Since many concerns — e.g. schools and universities — do not charge for their services, the balance of accounts among the firms themselves, insofar as some have a profit and others, a deficit, must be undertaken in conjunction with association banks.

This concept of money, raised to the level of the successful social evolution, has sweeping repercussions. It solves the problem of power insofar as it is based on the monetary aspect. Because of the refusal to recognize that monetary regulations were no longer part of economic life, but had become an independent functionary system in the area of law, the old Roman concept of private ownership could survive without restriction. So also the categories of profit and loss could become operational. The unrestricted appropriation of everything involved with the production sites remained legitimate.

On the other hand, the recognition of the transformed monetary concept leads, without a single civic measure or fiscal exercise, towards the abolition of the ownership as well as the profit principle in the production sphere.

And what becomes of the stock exchange, land speculations, usury, inflation? They disappear, as do the hostages of unemployment. The world of stocks passes away overnight, without causing even one gear to grind. And the stockholders, the speculators, the big landowners? Will they present their holy riches to mankind on the sacrificial altar of the dawning new age? We shall see. In any case, everyone will find his place in society, where he can apply his abilities for the benefit of the whole in a free, productive and meaningful way.

With regard to consumerism, production will be in accordance with consumer need. No profit or ownership interests inhibit or divert this, the only proper economic goal. The fraternity that has already reached an elementary stage within the integral system — “Work is, on principle, work for others” — can evolve without hindrance.

A new light is cast on the ecological question as well. Economic ecology is self-evident, when a free science, liberal education and open information systems comprehensively research and disseminate the laws of life and illuminate their significance for man.

The Form of Freedom of the Sociological Organism

We might consider entrusting the state with the management of social development, were it not for the fact that this stands in radical contradiction to the freedom impulse, to the demand for self-determination, self-responsibility and self-government (decentralization). For this reason, the last important question that arises in conjunction with the concept of the evolutionary alternative of the Third Way — “How can a society freed of constraints find its developmental direction, oriented to human needs and physical necessities?” — can only be answered with a description of the “form of freedom of the social organism” (Schmundt).

On the one hand, freedom is an individual impulse to act according to self-determined motives. On the other hand, self-determined action is free only if it occurs “with insight into the conditions of life of the whole” (Rudolf Steiner).

For the complex interrelationships within our production, which is based on a division of labour, this means that the individual, or the individual firm, can only with great difficulty discern, on its own, how the task — to produce something for the needs of others — can best be accomplished. Thus it is necessary to incorporate into the body of society a new functionary system: the SYSTEM OF ADVISORY TRUSTEES, an authentic counsellor-system as a constant source of inspiration.

Every worker’s collective can best gain an insight into the conditions, relationships and effects of its actions if it appoints a board of trustees in which the democratically authorized management of the firm discusses the purposes, goals and development of the firm, from the most comprehensive viewpoint possible, with leading personalities of other companies, banks, scientific research institutions and also representatives of its consumer groups. Those responsible in each case must make the decisions. Through the assistance of the trustees, these decisions will be supported by an optimally objective perception of the situation.

What holds true for the associations of workers’ collectives among themselves also plays a role in the basic structure of a single free concern. Once the antithesis of “employer” and “employee” is overcome, the field is open for a social structure in which processes of FREE CONSULTATION, DEMOCRATIC DEALING, and finally, a JOINT EFFORT for the social environment are interwoven.

Everyone has the right to free entrepreneurial initiative, because man is an enterprising being. It is necessary that managers have the capacity to call upon their co-workers in accordance with their professional competence and expertise. This function, however, will bring them neither material privileges nor any other form of power that is not democratically legitimate. Thus, within the framework of the Third Way, FREE ENTERPRISE in a self-administered economy and self-governed culture is the democratic base unit in a post-capitalistic and post-communistic NEW SOCIETY OF REAL SOCIALISM.

The law-giving, ruling and administrative activities of the state are limited to the function of determining the democratic rights and duties applicable to all, and of putting them into practice.

The state will shrink considerably. We shall see what remains.

WHAT CAN WE DO NOW TO BRING ABOUT THE ALTERNATIVE?

Whoever considers this image of the evolutionary alternative will have a clear fundamental understanding of the SOCIAL SCULPTURE which is shaped by MAN AS ARTIST.

Whoever says that a change is necessary, but skips over the “revolution of concepts” and attacks only the external manifestations of the ideologies, will fail. He will either resign, content himself with reforming, or end up in the dead-end street of terrorism. All three are forms of the victory of the system’s strategy.

If we ask in conclusion, therefore: WHAT CAN WE DO? in order to actually reach the goal of a new form from the ground up, we have to recognize that there is only ONE way to transform the status quo — but it requires a wide spectrum of measures.

The only way is the NON-VIOLENT TRANSFORMATION. Non-violent, but not, indeed, because violence does not appear promising at a given time or for particular reasons. No. Non-violence on principle, on human, intellectual, moral and socio-political grounds.

On the one hand, the dignity of man stands and falls with the inviolability of the person, and whoever disregards this, steps down from the level of humanity. On the other hand, it is precisely those systems which must be transformed that are built on force of every thinkable kind. Thus the use of any kind of force constitutes an expression of behaviour that conforms to the system, i.e. that reinforces what it wants to dissolve.

This appeal is an encouragement and exhortation to go the way of the non-violent transformation. Those who have been passive so far, although filled with uneasiness and dissatisfaction, are called upon to BECOME ACTIVE. Your activity is perhaps the only thing which can lead those who are active, but are flirting with the tools of violence, or who already use violence, back to the route of non-violent action.

Although the “revolution of concepts” described above is the essential factor in the means to change that is outlined here, it is not necessarily the first step. Nor can it claim absoluteness. Whoever has the capability of thinking through the theories of Marxism, liberalism, the Christian social teaching, etc. will realize that these theories certainly come to the same conclusions as we do.

Today it is necessary to think the historical initiatives through to their conclusions. Where this has been done courageously, it is noticeable how the fronts shift. Then Bahro is closer to Karl-Hermann Flach and William Borm than these are to their party colleague Lambsdorff, and closer than he, in turn, was to his associates, who arrested and condemned him.

The process of conversion of inveterate abstract concepts is in full swing. It must lead to a GREAT DIALOGUE: to inter-factionary, inter-disciplinary and international communication between the alternative theoretical solutions. The FREE INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY (free college for creativity and inter-disciplinary research) offers a constant opportunity to organize and develop this communication.

“Against the concentrated interests of the powerful, only a compelling idea, one at least as strong as the humanistic concepts of the last centuries and the Christian concepts of the first centuries of our time, stands a chance.” (Gruhl) We need a constant and comprehensive dialogue to develop this “compelling idea” from the various beginnings spawned by the new social movement. The FREE INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, as the organizational focus of this research, work and communication, therefore signifies all the groups and basic units in our society in which people have gathered to consider jointly the questions of our social future. The more people who involve themselves in this work, the more strongly and effectively the alternative ideas will be brought to bear. Therefore the appeal is sounded: FOUND WORK CENTRES OF THE FREE INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, the university of the people.

But this alone is not yet enough. Wherever possible, we should decide to PRACTISE alternative life and work styles. Many have made a start, of limited scope and in special areas. The THIRD WAY CONSTRUCTION INITIATIVE ACTION (AUFBAU-INITIATIVE AKTION DRITTER WEG – ed.) (business-association, endowment, member-ship organization), is a consolidation of alternative economic and cultural enterprises. Individual groups or businesses that want to put their alternative ideas into practice are called upon to support this project.

A final, topical aspect, perhaps the most important and decisive for the way of non-violent transformation. How can the NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENT attain a POLITICAL DIMENSION?

This raises the question of the possibility of parliamentary action, at least within the western democracies. If we follow this path, we do right only if we develop a NEW STYLE of political work and political organizing. Only if we practise this new style will we overcome the obstacles — re-strictive clauses and the like — that are erected in the way of alternative developments.

In any case, it would be necessary that alternative models for a solution arise from the parliaments as well, to be perceptible to the public at large. But to do this, people who have worked out such models have to get into the parliaments. How will they do this? By concentrating their entire strength on a JOINT ELECTORAL INITIATIVE.

How the total alternative movement is understood is decisive for such an effort. After all, the movement comprises many streams, initiatives, organizations, institutions, etc. Only in solidarity do they all stand a chance.

Joint electoral initiative does not mean old-style party organization, party platform, party debate. The unity that is required can only be a UNITY IN THE MANIFOLD.

The citizens’ initiative movement, the ecological, freedom, and women’s movements, the movement of operational models, the movement for a democratic socialism, a humanistic liberalism, a Third Way, the anthroposophical movement and the Christian-denominational oriented streams, the civil rights movement and the Third World movement must recognize that they are indispensable components of the total alternative movement; parts that do not exclude or contradict one another, but are mutually complementary.

In reality, there are alternative concepts and initiatives that are Marxistic, Catholic, protestant, liberal, anthroposophical, ecological, etc. In many essential points they already agree to a large extent. This is the basis of solidarity in the unit. In other areas, there is disagreement. This is the basis of freedom within the unit.

A joint electoral initiative of the total alternative movement is only realistic in the form of an ALLIANCE of many autonomous groups, whose relationship among themselves and towards the public is defined by a spirit of ACTIVE TOLERANCE. Our parliaments need the liberating spirit and the life of such a union, the UNION FOR THE NEW DEMOCRACY.

The vehicles that will take the new route are ready to roll. They offer space and work for all.

Readers who are interested in information and collaboration on the projects “Free International University”, “Third Way Construction Initiative Action”, and “Union for the New Democracy” may contact the

Free International University
8991 Achberg
4000 Dusseldorf 11
Drakeplatz 4
Federal Republic of Germany