The peaceful and bloodless revolution of the 20th century which will lead to a true world revolution differs by its radicalism from all preceding ones, which were actually only revolts. It goes to the roots of the establishment.
For it brings not only some liberties but full and complete freedom, realfreedom. It does not replace previous domination by a new domination, but brings non-domination for each and all. It frees not only abstract groups or classes but, without exception, all individuals.It proceeds not from an ideological basis but from a logically unassailable one.
It therefore differs from all previous revolutions in its starting point, means and end, and will also supply a surprisingly simple answer to Pilate’s old question: “What is truth?” It states only incontestable facts, which for many will mean saying goodbye to untenable ideas and accustomed ways of thinking. However, these facts can give everyonewhat he most lacked up to now â€” though without always being conscious of the lack. For the logical conclusion of these facts points to the unavoidable alternative: the alternative between aggressive force and agreement â€” on the only possible lasting basis!
For the first time in human history a basis is offered on which different world views, religions, moral systems and ideologies meet and not only can but mustagree. For who can dare to declare himself openly an adherent of the law of the club and of aggressive force?
On this new, unshakable basis, from a surprising as well as a convincing point of view, there follows the description of a social state which is without domination not because it is classless, but is classless because it is without domination. Marx and his successors failed to describe such a society or even to think it through consistently.
Since the Greek word AN-ARCHY was chosen because of its meaning as the appropriate designation of this state, one should first of all exclude all notions which are normally associated with this concept. For it has to do neither with chaos nor with force, and not at all with terrorism. What has been and is considered “anarchistic” and “anarchy” is â€” with only relatively few exceptions â€” a distorted image of the realanarchism and rather the very oppositeof it. One could even present the consequences developed here as what is actually meantby true democracy (which, of course, does not agree at all with the present reality of democracy).
A clever Frenchman once said: In the future there will be only two groups of people â€” those who want to live by their own work, and those who want to live by the work of others. More appropriately and inclusively one could say: A line is to be drawn between
those who want to enlarge their own sphere of freedom by force, at the expense of the freedom of others, or wish to maintain a state which already ensures such an im-balance of freedom, and those whose goal is the equal freedom of everyone,and who, therefore, do not require additional freedom for themselves at the expense of the freedom of others.
A condition of equal freedom for everyone (in which, for example, unemployment is as absurd as it is impossible) needs no dictatorship. On the contrary, it cannot tolerate a dictatorship. The non-dominating society corresponding to this state is not a mere future aim either. Its foundations can be established here and now, that is immediately (and to the benefit of all). With all its consequences it can be realized in the quite near future.
Einstein, among others, pointed out that progress in human thinking, especially in the social sciences, has limped far behind technological progress. Thus, as the most urgent task for our time, he demanded a new way of thinking. It is offered here.
Apart from the optimal solution for all social relationships, this new way of thinking offers the indispensable conditions for peace!
And it requires a clear decision.