Proposals from which working groups create models to be discussed and published by all interested parties.

• Formation of soviet republics:
  
  Study of the Commune, Kronstadt and the Warsaw Ghetto, models from local to global. (CW)
  
• Establishment of an international court
  
  for economic crimes, for example: construction of devices with built-in self-destruction, production of food contaminated with chemical agents, taking interest, etc. (CW)
  
• Loose democracy – the revolution of democracy:

Loose democracy – the revolution of democracy:

The word revolution comes from Latin and is composed of the elements “re” = “back” and “volvere” = “to turn”. Revolution therefore means “turning back” in German. Revolution does not mean that the old is swept away and something completely new is put in its place, but rather that the wrong conditions are turned back to the original right ones. This is how the French revolutionaries of 1789 defined themselves: to replace the power of the French aristocracy, which could no longer be justified by anything, by turning it back to the structures of Roman democracy.

Perhaps the French revolutionaries did not go far enough with this. Democracy was not invented by the Romans, but by the Greeks. And even in these beginnings, the first approaches quickly changed into the forms that today, in their Facebook and Twitter form, can only be described as a caricature of democracy and no longer have anything to do with the idea of the rule of the people, as democracy literally means.

The decisive element of the original Greek democracy was not the election but the drawing of lots. After a pre-selection determined by clearly regulated criteria, a certain number of citizens were available, among whom the lot decided who had to hold political office for a legislative period. The decisive factor was short legislative periods and no second term of office.

As late as the 18th century, the French philosopher Montesquieu described democracy based on elections as “aristocratic”; only democracy based on the drawing of lots was truly democratic. The Italian city states practised this until the 14th century. The last remnants of this understanding of democracy can only be found today among jurors in the judiciary.

This is still taught today at humanist grammar schools. In the sixties of the last century, an entire generation rebelled because the assertion of democratic conditions had little to do with the actual conditions. However, this movement did not manage to change anything, perhaps because it had a wrong understanding of revolution.

If the current global crisis has made one thing clear, it is the bankruptcy of this murderous spectre of democracy. Whether it is Trump’s money aristocracy or Bavaria’s retro monarchy, never has Montesquieu been more blatantly vindicated. A more appropriate time to put his admonition into practice and go back to the roots is hardly imaginable.

At a time when every new shampoo is called “revolutionary”, it is high time to turn the concept of revolution back to its original meaning. Today, even the most well-intentioned citizen can no longer dismiss the structural fraud of this upside-down form of democracy. Revolution today means putting democracy back on its feet: Two chambers of parliament, each consisting of elected representatives of the relevant social interest groups on the one hand, and citizens chosen by lot on the other; this with the shortest possible legislative periods and non-repeatability of political offices.

For this revolution, no guillotines, no terror, no expropriations are needed, only a constitutional amendment, submitted by lawyers to the petition committees of the respective countries, in Switzerland by referendum.

Finally, there would be an end to the ridiculous party posturing, the henpecked appearance even of female politicians, the stupid election posters.
Finally, an end to the abstract talk of sustainable abundance and pension-protected adventure, this certified bullshit with gold medals, this ecological wellness park on the blood and bones of slaves.

The French revolutionaries shot at the clocks to stop time; today the clocks must be changed to the age of concrete questions:

Private cars, yes or no; advertising, yes or no; borders, yes or no.
Even if these questions are not answered in the way one would like, the result, as not manipulated, would be a democratic decision – and not the end of all days.
No more leaders, gurus and preachers. Back to primal democracy. For a revolution in the original sense of the word.
Now or never. All the way or not at all. Putting our money where our mouth is.
Christof Wackernagel

• A declaration by all the car manufacturers of the world:
  
  “from now on, we no longer think of ourselves as automobile companies competing for profit, but we think of ourselves from now on as transportation experts and manufacturers competing to produce the simplest, most efficient, most durable, most ecological and cheapest means of transportation in all forms, small, large, for long distances and for close, thereby engaging in an incredibly creative competition by means of which we will produce the greatest things – not just cars – that have ever existed. (CW)
  
• Abolition of advertising:
  
  Models of a global information structure that allows everyone to have all the information they need about existing products and offers, while preventing it from being imposed on them.
  
• Abolition of inheritance:
  
  Definition of “personal things” that are passed on and “common property” that is transferred to the community. Catalogue of criteria of distribution, which also applies to the definition of the maximum limit of property (CW).
  
• Union of religions:
  
  Assuming one God, he created the different religions to give every human being the opportunity to communicate with him in his own way.
  But people have not understood this until today: the religions fight each other instead of uniting.
  The natural religions, Buddhism, Confucianism, Judaism, Christianity, the individual spiritualist religions and Islam are uniting into one religion of one God of one world. (CW)

These are only initial examples.