Is ecosocialism a dirty word at Davos?

Today there is broad agreement that we need something better than capitalism to save our planet. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, climate change and sustainability was the focus on Day 3.  It's unlikely to hear of ecosocialism in such a gathering of the wealthy.  

Here's Richard Smith at the opening plenary of the 2013 Ecosocialist conference:

 

At the opening plenary for the 2009 Economics for Ecology conference at Sumy State University Terry Hallman delvered our paper on Economics in Transition. It drew attention to the destruction of our planet and the effectiveness of capitalism in killing people through deprivation, concluding:

Thus the issue of ecology economics is not only 'the third bottom line', it might be more aptly renamed the economics of survival of the human species.  That includes everyone, regardless of one or another economic hypothesis or theory they might prefer.  We can endlessly debate and discuss von Mises/von Hayek free market economics/capitalism which proved successful except for the times it failed, and then study why it failed – repeatedly, the most recent failure in September 2008.  We can endlessly debate and discuss opposing Keynesian government interventionist economics/capitalism,  which proved successful except for the times it failed.  That has been an alternating pattern for the past eighty years in Western capitalism.  We can discuss the successes and failures of various flavors of communism and fascism.  At this point, the simple fact is that regarding economic theory, no one knows what to do next.  Possibly this has escaped immediate attention in Ukraine, but, economists in the US as of the end of 2008 openly confessed that they do not know what to do.  So, we invented three trillion dollars, lent it to ourselves, and are trying to salvage a broken system so far by reestablishing the broken system with imaginary money.

Now there are, honestly, no answers.  It is all just guesswork, and not more than that.  What is not guesswork is that the broken – again – capitalist system, be it traditional economics theories in the West or hybrid communism/capitalism in China, is sitting in a world where the existence of human beings is at grave risk, and it's no longer alarmist to say so.

The question at hand is what to do next, and how to do it.  We all get to invent whatever new economics system that comes next, because we must.

The 2010 presentation was based on feedback and discussions with students during the 2009 conference.

"Among three main areas of economics, the financial sphere remains dominant over social economics and environmental economics. The reason for this is very simple: in order for any system of economics to be sustainable over time, it must first be financially sustainable. If a system costs more than it produces, it requires infinite inputs over time. Infinite inputs are not available in a finite world, and we live in a finite world. If we pursue a system that costs more than it produces financially, it must and will necessarily collapse. But now, the financial system itself is broken: it costs far more than it produces."

A study guide for students on the economic crisis and its origins was part of the collaboration with Sumy 

At Schumacher College, in a collaboration with the New Economics Foundation and Transition Towns,  there is now a course on Economics for Transition.

Never has there been a more important time for a new approach to economics.

There is an urgent need for a radical rethink of our economic system. We need new thinking and new models that recognise the challenges we face now, rather than blindly following the path that has led us into the converging crises we now face.

These models will enable us to both mitigate the impacts and adapt to these inter-locking crises – including climate change, biodiversity loss, the peaking in fossil fuel energy supplies, financial instability, food security, poverty and so on.

They will be built on an understanding of the complementarity of ecological protection and human flourishing.

For 20 years, pioneering thinkers and practitioners have been developing alternative economic ideas, models and experiments that were once considered radical and marginal.

As we turn to face a new economic dawn, these theories and practices are now moving centre stage.

More than 5 years on from the economic crisis, we observe a decline in support for the idea that business can achieve a triple bottom line in a growth based economy. The phrase, first coined by John Elkington to describe this balance of financial, social and envirnmental return has given way to support for individual action from organisation which embed social and/or environmental purpose in their business models.

Profit for Purpose is the term we began using to describe a new bottom line for business which begins by asking what if business put people ahead of profit and leads us to Ukraine where it was applied to create a 'Marshall Plan' for Ukraine . 

Writing of where our moral compass meets the bottom line. Unilever CEO Paul Polman sayas this about purpose:

:"When people talk about new forms of capitalism, this is what I have in mind: companies that show, in all transparency, that they are contributing to society, now and for many generations to come. Not taking from it.

It is nothing less than a new business model. One that focuses on the long term. One that sees business as part of society, not separate from it. One where companies seek to address the big social and environmental issues that threaten social stability. One where the needs of citizens and communities carry the same weight as the demands of shareholders."

We could take it even further, to where the needs of people outweigh the demands of shareholders.  .

"Each of us who have a choice can choose what we want to do to help or not.  It is free-will, our choice, as human beings."

With the World Economic Forum at Davos having concluded, this discussion about business with social and environmental goals, opens with the matter of Ukraine's current crisis:

It is perhaps ironic that Tony Blair chairs this discussion, given his role in the war in Iraq and the conclusions from the 'Marshall Plan' paper about how the amount of 1.5 billion dollars, spent in Iraq each week, could be deployed for seeding business for social purpose on a national level in Ukraine.  It may have something to do with Pinchuk's donation to the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, while children in Ukraine perished from malnutrition in institutional care - Ukraine's Death Camps, For Children.  .    

     

 

Related:

Post Growth People-Centered Local Economies 

A Marshall Plan for Ukraine: part one

A Marshall Plan for Ukraine: part two

Creating a World without Poverty - Muhammad Yunus