At the same time, people only gain access to goods in the market if they have an income. This income must be generated by companies selling whatever can be sold. Those who sell too little go under. So when we call for a more sustainable way of life, we jeopardise wages, jobs and social benefits.

Because fewer and fewer cars are being sold, the arms industry now has to step in to create jobs. All it takes is a bogeyman. Yet growing arsenals, geopolitical tensions, unpredictable heads of state and increasingly scarce resources heighten the risk of ever-new conflicts.

Although political decision-makers are looking for alternatives, they continue to operate within a system that they themselves scarcely question anymore. Growth appears not as a political decision, but as an apparent necessity.

Added to this is a structural problem: the economy cannot simply be steered by politics. Attempts to implement ‘green growth’, for example, fail because, in a market economy, what ultimately counts is what pays off. What is more expensive cannot prevail.

Yet further economic growth would not even be necessary. If we were to distribute existing surpluses fairly, the needs of all people could be met. In the current system, however, this would mean that wages would have to fall and unemployment would rise – a contradiction to the political promises of prosperity and security.

How does today’s economy actually work?

In everyday life, much seems to go without saying.

We go to the supermarket, intending to buy just a few bits and bobs – and end up at the checkout with a full trolley. Many prices appear to be reduced, and we feel we’ve got a good deal.

That feels like prosperity. But is it really?

Our economy is organised in such a way that buying and selling must take place constantly. Companies must make a profit, otherwise they disappear from the market. That is why many decisions are not primarily about what people need – but about whether it can be sold.

This is particularly evident in key areas of our lives:

A hospital is closed even though it is needed – simply because it does not generate enough profit. It is not a lack of patients, but a lack of profitability.

Political decisions often follow this logic too:

Should more money be invested in roads or in the railways? Often, the deciding factor is not what would make more sense for people or the environment, but where investments are economically ‘worthwhile’.

Our everyday lives are also shaped by this:

To maintain prosperity, we need rising incomes. At the same time, the economy relies on selling ever more. If this growth fails to materialise, crises arise: companies make losses, jobs are lost, uncertainty grows – and with it, social division.

Meanwhile, ecological limits continue to be exceeded. Energy and raw material consumption is rising, even though many products are only used for part of their potential lifespan.

Energy and raw material demand is skyrocketing, and the IMF forecasts a further 15 per cent growth over the next five years. We are destroying the foundations of our existence, yet on average we throw away what we buy after half its useful life. [1, 2,3]

Today, we no longer need the market. The internet can fulfil this information function far better. Everyone now has the opportunity to communicate their needs directly to producers.

If producers knew exactly what people need for a dignified life, they would only need to produce exactly that.

Added to this is the development of artificial intelligence. Used under democratic control, it could help to coordinate production and delivery processes efficiently – guided by need, sustainability and regional possibilities.

Such coordination could, for example, ensure:

• that products are manufactured as locally as possible
• that unnecessary transport is avoided
• that production conditions are humane

This would allow production to be geared towards actual demand; there would no longer need to be any surpluses.

A Monday in everyday life – with the first minor hiccups

The basic processes remain the same: needs are reported, production is organised, people go about their work.

What is new is that there are no longer prices to automatically guide the system. Instead, everyone relies on transparent demand indicators, empirical data and direct coordination. It works – though perhaps not always smoothly at first.

A waterworks

The operations engineer arrives at work at 7 am on Monday, 3 May. In the control room, he sees that everything is running smoothly.

He reports the need for disinfectant to the chemical store.

The system shows: delivery possible – though with a slight delay in response, as several waterworks have reported their requirements simultaneously. Apparently, many have rechecked their stock levels following the changeover.

The maintenance technician points out a fluctuating pump. The replacement is scheduled. The request to the pump manufacturer is marked as ‘critical’.

However, there is a brief moment of uncertainty: how many “critical” requests are currently in progress at the same time? The systems are not yet perfectly synchronised.

The staff decide to also enquire directly with the manufacturer.

Both staff members carry out their daily tasks checking the equipment and performing maintenance work, and on their way home they pop into the supermarket and pick up their daily groceries, free of charge, of course.

The chemical warehouse

Several large orders have come in at the same time.

An employee realises: if everything is dispatched immediately, stock levels will fall below the safety reserve.

In the past, the price would have sorted that out. Now they have to decide for themselves.

They prioritise: drinking water supply takes precedence over industrial applications. Some less urgent orders are postponed by one or two days, with brief notification to the relevant businesses.

At the same time, production at the chemical plant is ramping up.

The staff carry out their daily tasks and, on their way home, pop into the supermarket and pick up their daily groceries, free of charge, of course.

The pump factory

The request for the pump from the waterworks has come in – but it’s not the only one.

Several plants have reported a need at the same time. The engineer and the team must decide:

Which pump will be built first?

They base their decision on urgency: infrastructure takes precedence over individual production.

A slight delay arises nonetheless because a specific type of seal is in short supply. A reorder is underway, but the supplier’s response is still unclear.

The employees begin building the pump and, at the end of the day, they pop into the supermarket and pick up their daily groceries – free of charge, of course.

A bakery

As early as three o’clock in the morning, the baker starts kneading the necessary dough. Of course, it is very early, but he knows that this means he can spend the whole day in his allotment. He has a few chickens and wants to repair a wall of the chicken coop.

Demand is a bit erratic in the first few days after the changeover. Some people take more than usual, just to be on the safe side.

By late morning, certain types of bread have sold out earlier than usual.

The baker wonders: should he produce more tomorrow?

He checks the demand notices and speaks to other bakers in the area.

In the long run, things will settle down – but for now, coordination is still needed.

The flour is running low. He reports the requirement to the mill.

When everything is finished, he washes the equipment he has used. He knows that in future he won’t have to pay for the water, as it is freely available. He is glad that the waterworks provides water of impeccable hygiene.

Until last week, he had a cheap supply contract; the water cost next to nothing because he was, in effect, a bulk buyer. But now that he realises he is receiving the water as a gift, he takes particular care not to waste it.

When he has finished everything and is ready to leave, he pops into the supermarket and picks up his daily groceries – free of charge, of course.

The Miller

A few years ago, the miller restored an old watermill and now grinds flour for various bakeries.

Some bakeries have increased their orders, whilst others are uncertain and are ordering less for the time being.

He begins production, but soon realises that his grain supply won’t be enough for everyone at once if the increased demand continues.

He contacts several farmers, not just one as he used to. The coordination becomes a little more intensive than usual.

There are still more orders to fulfil this Monday, and when he’s finished with everything in the afternoon, he pops to the supermarket to pick up the daily groceries, free of charge, of course.

The farmer

The farmer had a fairly good rye harvest last summer and his storage tower is still well stocked. Today he has to take care of watering his field, as there hasn’t been much rain yet this spring.

He receives several enquiries at the same time. In the past, he would simply have sold to the highest bidder. Now he decides differently:

He distributes the deliveries so that as many mills as possible remain operational.

In doing so, he focuses on regional supply and known requirements.

Part of his decision remains a matter of judgement – but it is precisely this responsibility that now forms a greater part of his role.

And when he’s finished with everything in the afternoon, he pops to the supermarket to do his daily shopping. For free, just like everyone else.

People who until now had to rely on taxes and sponsorship:

Theatre director

The director enters her office in the morning. In the past, her day often began with a look at attendance figures, season tickets and the question of which productions ‘work’.

Today, she looks instead at the rehearsal schedule and feedback from the ensemble.

A director has proposed staging an experimental play that explores working relationships and the search for meaning. In the past, she would have hesitated: too unwieldy, difficult to market, risky for the box office.

Now the question is framed differently:

Is the play artistically relevant? Does it have something to say?

Together with the ensemble, she decides in favour of it.

At the same time, she remains in charge:

The stage, the workshops, the technical aspects – all of this still needs to be organised. It is no longer about revenue, but very much about the meaningful use of time, space and materials.

In the afternoon, she speaks with set designers and technicians. An elaborate set design is discussed. In the past, it might have been ruled out due to budget constraints; today the question is:

Is the effort justified? Are there simpler solutions?

In the evening, there is a rehearsal. Some seats in the auditorium are already occupied – not because of tickets sold, but because people are curious to follow the creative process.

The theatre has become more open.

The artistic director realises:

The pressure to measure ‘success’ in numbers has disappeared.

Instead, another challenge has become more pressing – working together to discover what is truly meaningful.

When she goes home later, her work feels freer – but also more responsible. Like everyone else, she takes her daily errands with her, free of charge, of course.

An employee at an NGO (e.g. environmental sector)

She is working on a project to protect a river basin.

She used to be dependent on grants and sponsors. A large part of her time was spent on applications and securing funding.

Today, that is no longer necessary.

She coordinates directly with local businesses, scientists and volunteers. Resources are no longer ‘applied for’, but rather identified as needs.

The project is progressing faster – but also requires more direct coordination and responsibility.

Like everyone else, she takes her daily errands with her, free of charge, of course.

A tram driver

The driver starts her shift on the local transport network.

In the past, operations were funded by ticket sales and public subsidies. From today, everyone travels for free.

Planning continues to be managed via central control centres. The difference is:

It is not revenue that determines routes, but actual need.

Some routes are even being extended because it is becoming clear where people really need to be mobile.

And when she finishes her shift in the afternoon, she pops to the supermarket to do her daily shopping. For free, just like everyone else.

A waste collection worker

Early in the morning, he drives his route as usual.

For a long time, the work was monotonous, physically demanding and not particularly well-regarded. Lots of rubbish, heavy loads, often unnecessarily complicated by packaging and disposable products.

In the first few days after the changeover, not much has changed yet. The bins are still full – old habits don’t disappear overnight.

But the first changes are already visible.

Some households have started to sort their rubbish more carefully. Others are returning reusable containers to collection points. Packaging that used to be elaborately designed is increasingly being replaced by simple, reusable solutions.

The employee notices: the composition of the rubbish is changing.

At the same time, more people are involved in the collection rounds today than in the past. Not because there is more rubbish – but because, generally speaking, less working time per person is required and more people are taking part in such tasks from time to time.

The work is spread across more shoulders.

In particularly difficult areas, a small team provides additional help. In addition, a new vehicle is in use that automatically lifts and sorts bins – a technology that was often not deployed across the board in the past for cost reasons.

Nevertheless, not everything is straightforward:

Some materials are still difficult to recycle. The sorting facilities have not yet been fully converted. Delays sometimes occur because it is unclear where certain materials should be delivered.

At the end of the round, the team briefly discusses the situation.

They can clearly see:

The volume of waste is already decreasing.

The work is being distributed more effectively.

And many problems are no longer blocked by budget constraints, but can be tackled practically.

Over the coming weeks, the plan is to work with local businesses and households to set up new systems for reuse and recycling.

When he goes home in the afternoon, he is still tired.

But he has the feeling that his work is changing – not because it is disappearing, but because, step by step, it is becoming more meaningful and easier.

The supermarket

The change is most evident in the supermarket.

Most people are keeping calm and taking what they need.

Some, however, initially help themselves a little more generously – out of uncertainty. Short-term gaps appear on the shelves for certain products.

The staff react:

• They provide transparent information about stock levels
• They speak directly to customers
• They report shortages immediately

After just a few days, behaviour begins to stabilise. Many realise that there is no point in hoarding if supplies continue.

Conclusion of the day

Daily life functions – albeit not without a hitch.

What is missing is automatic control via prices.

What emerges is something else:

• conscious prioritisation
• direct communication
• shared responsibility

In the first few days, this means more coordination, occasional uncertainties and minor delays.

But the fundamental experience is:

Supply does not collapse.

It changes form – from indirect, price-driven coordination to direct, needs-based cooperation.

It has now been conclusively demonstrated that we can free the economy from the market’s compulsion to generate profit, so that it can focus exclusively on people’s genuine needs and the protection of the Earth.

For several decades now, we have observed that it is not possible to intervene effectively in the economy through political means. The only lever available is the withholding of wages and profits.

We can withdraw the financial basis from the economy by ceasing to issue invoices and payslips, thereby ensuring that no further profits are generated.

Wages and profits will no longer be necessary after the transformation, because all products of the economy will then be available free of charge.

How realistic is it to bring employers and employees to the negotiating table?

To date, there have been major industrial disputes involving hundreds of thousands of participants, all aimed at securing pay rises.

• Postal strike in the USA (1970): Although this was an ‘illegal’ strike by federal employees, 210,000 workers brought the postal service to a standstill. Faced with the chaos, the government was forced to back down. The result was an 8% pay rise and the Postal Reorganisation Act, which granted workers the right to collective bargaining for the first time.
• GE strike (1946): Almost 200,000 workers in the electrical industry went on strike. They were joined a week later by 800,000 steelworkers. For the first time in history, three major industries were brought to a standstill simultaneously. The result was a substantial pay rise of 18.5 cents an hour. [6], [7]

Why should it not be possible, in the face of impending collapse, to involve all workers and employers worldwide?

No international laws are required. People simply need to agree:

• We are taking this step to ensure a future worth living for our children and grandchildren.
• To put an end to the global problems of resource exploitation and growing inequality.

One step could be for business owners and employees to forgo wages and profits.

The step could also involve all producers and retailers globally declaring products to be available free of charge.

Perhaps, through discussion of this transformation, we will find another way together.

Silly question. Why shouldn’t we work anymore, just because all products and services are freely available?

The motivation for work changes significantly. Until now, we had to work because otherwise we would starve. After the transition, we will work because the products we receive for free do, after all, have to be produced. That should really go without saying.

It is no longer a question of underpaid people doing the unpleasant jobs, but rather that these tasks, which seem unattractive in today’s system – from mining lithium to repairing sewers – will be largely automated.

Anyone capable of building automated space probes that can fly to Mars and collect soil samples can also build robots to carry out such tasks and similar ones on Earth.

Today, these disadvantaged people work for little pay. If a tonne of lithium is to be sold on the world market, it must be cheaper than the competition’s. Today, this is only possible with cheap labour.

If prices no longer exist, then money is no longer a deciding factor. Many car factories could be converted relatively quickly to building robots. The necessary machinery is already in place there. If car factories are no longer focused on selling as much as possible, then more labour-intensive robots can also be built.

Once labour costs are no longer an obstacle, goods can be designed from the ground up to be fully recyclable. What is currently glued together or disposed of as composite material for cost reasons can then be returned to single-material recycling loops. Raw materials will no longer be in short supply because, once extracted, they remain permanently within the system.

Detailed questions of individual distribution (such as the allocation of a penthouse) take a back seat to this fundamental reorganisation; they are secondary issues that are resolved differently in a system of abundance and cooperation than in a system of scarcity and competition.

The old concept of a centrally planned economy with rigid production targets is outdated. That is why this needs-based economy is not socialism either.

In a networked world where all production and consumption data can be recorded digitally, it is possible to react dynamically to changes – in real time. Large sections of the economy already operate in this way today. Just-in-time production is nothing new.

Every time goods are taken, be it food or a spare part, digital signals are already generated: till systems, warehouse logistics and ordering systems communicate with one another. Shared-housing communities or individuals can also use this system to register their need for services, such as repairs.

In the market-free economy, these signals are used further, but not for pricing or profit expectations, rather for pure needs analysis. AI records what is needed, recognises patterns, balances out regional differences and provides recommendations for action to producers, extending to civil society initiatives such as repair cafés.

An anonymous, uncontrollable market is replaced by a transparent, cooperative network that is monitored on a grassroots democratic basis. Production sites, warehouses, distribution points and repair centres are digitally linked. Interfaces between businesses are retained, but orders are no longer placed through ‘purchases’ but through requests for goods or services.

AI can help to optimise processes, minimise waste and reduce energy consumption. It identifies maintenance needs, coordinates transport and helps to use resources sparingly and efficiently. In areas where automation is not yet possible, people can volunteer, motivated not by compulsion but by a sense of purpose and social recognition.

Democratic governance and co-determination

Digital connectivity also creates new opportunities for grassroots democratic participation. Regional supply councils, platforms for setting priorities, collective feedback systems – all of this can be implemented using today’s technologies. People can have a direct say in what is produced, how and where. AI serves as a tool for decision support in this context.

The existing information infrastructure as a foundation

The technological foundation for an economy free from market forces already exists. Major online platforms such as Amazon or Alibaba currently collect data on purchasing behaviour, preferences and usage habits. They can track in real time which products are in demand, monitor stock levels and coordinate delivery routes. All this is currently done to maximise profit and control prices. In a cashless society based on voluntary work, however, these systems could take on entirely new functions: they could relay people’s actual needs directly to producers.

Price would then no longer be the determining factor; instead, criteria such as short supply chains, local production, environmental impact or social equity would determine distribution. Algorithms that are currently optimised for profit could be reprogrammed to distribute goods in a way that meets needs, conserves resources and is fair.

If all goods are freely available, if nothing needs to be bought anymore, if the market has dissolved, then the financial system is no longer needed and would likewise dissolve.

This would be the simplest way to solve the problems caused by the financial system. Many people today are thinking about a better monetary system because central banks can now print unlimited amounts of money, leading to the creeping devaluation of assets.

However, there is considerable resistance to this from financial markets, large fortunes and geopolitical power centres. Without global cooperation, social trust and long-term cultural preparation, a stable introduction would be virtually impossible.

Staff in insurance companies, banks or tax offices would initially be made redundant. Of course, this initially appears to be an injustice, as the rest of the economy continues to operate.

However, following the transition, we are dealing with a different paradigm: the paradigm of voluntary contribution to society. Since, like everyone else, they receive all life’s necessities free of charge, they will in all likelihood feel obliged to make their contribution and step in where they can best apply their talents.

Utilising the technical infrastructure of the financial system

Stock exchanges such as the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ possess highly developed systems for real-time aggregation of information, for predicting bottlenecks and for optimising complex capacities.

The stock exchange as an institution, with speculation and returns, would of course be superfluous. What remains is the technical rationality: processing data, identifying needs, managing capacities. Its logic can be adopted to organise global supply efficiently, without the destructive incentive of profit.

Blockchain: Energy waste without social necessity

Blockchain technology is primarily a tool for securing ownership and transactions in a distrustful, market-driven society. In direct supply, this necessity is eliminated. Transactions do not need to be secured.

Democratically controlled AI replaces what blockchain was developed for: trust, traceability and security. At the same time, an enormous energy problem is eliminated. What was expensive and resource-intensive in the old world becomes superfluous as soon as society prioritises transparency, collective control and mutual responsibility.

Conclusion: Repurpose technology rather than reinvent it

Existing information systems do not need to be reinvented; they simply need to be redirected. Profit-driven control becomes needs-based fairness, advertising becomes supply transparency, and stock market trading becomes logistical intelligence. The technical means are available – all that is missing is the political and societal break with the old control principle of money and the market.

The transition to demand-driven production is not a vision of the future awaiting science-fiction technologies, but a practical repurposing of existing systems whose moral and social mandate is undergoing a radical transformation.

Without advertising, planned obsolescence and competitive pressure, less is produced – and precisely what is needed. AI recognises when demand falls and reduces production accordingly. Resources are conserved, the environment is relieved, and the climate is protected.

The shrinking economy is not a sign of crisis, but of liberation. Because: the less we have to work, the more time remains for family, friends, sport, hobbies and civil society.

Instead of relying on price signals and competition, we rely on:

• Global connectivity: 96% of the world’s population can be reached via mobile.
• Just-in-time production: Production only takes place once a need has been identified.
• AI-supported logistics: A democratically controlled Artificial Intelligence optimises regional cycles and transport routes.

Entrepreneurs do not lose ownership of factories or fields. They merely lose the need to generate profits, as they themselves (like everyone else) have free access to all goods. Their role changes: Instead of competing, they can channel their creativity into developing truly sustainable and repairable products – free from the pressure of cost optimisation.

This concern is understandable – but we already know the answer from our everyday lives. Flat-rate services have shown for years that people use these offers, but they do not use them without limit.

Nobody watches TV series on Netflix round the clock. Nobody spends the whole day pointlessly travelling around by train. Nobody lives in the gym.

Why?

Because we have no interest in wasting our time on pointless consumption.

When advertising and price pressure are removed, the opposite tends to happen:

We consume less, but more consciously.

No. Socialisation merely changes the owner of the factory (state or collective), but not the commodity form. As long as prices exist, the compulsion for growth remains. This proposal goes deeper: it aims for the abolition of the market itself. It is not ownership that is changed, but access: everything is available without a price. That is the decisive qualitative leap.

Why haven’t we had ‘friendly money’ for ages, why hasn’t the economy been run as a cooperative for ages? We have known for 50 years that continued economic growth leads to collapse. Nevertheless, wealth and poverty continue to grow. But there are countless academic papers on both. AI can handle that just fine.

We humans differ from AI because we can put ourselves in certain situations. We could certainly imagine working, even if everything in life were available for free.

Today, we have to earn money through our work, which we then use to buy the necessities of life that others have produced for us. Once labour costs have disappeared, we will get everything for free and carry on working, just as before. Not out of necessity, but voluntarily.

Once the fear of unemployment has vanished and work no longer costs anything, production can finally be automated, and products can be designed and manufactured to be as recyclable as possible.

In contrast to AI, we can also imagine that as production declines – when truly only what is necessary for a life of dignity is manufactured – far fewer raw materials will be required. If, on top of that, recycling is made a priority, it could theoretically be possible to manage entirely without raw materials. Scarcity would be eliminated.