On a steamer travelling in the wrong direction

you can’t go very far in the right direction.

Michael Ende

After the fragmentation of the USSR and German reunification, it was considered to be definitively proven that capitalism was the only functioning, successful economic and social system. Voices warning that although communism was dead, capitalism was terminally ill and therefore there was no reason to rejoice were dismissed as unqualified. Only since the fever on the financial markets rose to such threatening heights that the entire monetary system and with it the real economy threatened to collapse, with dramatic consequences for democracy, has it been possible to think aloud about the downside of our economic order.

Criticising capitalism is now part of the daily agenda. However, it is limited to the “excesses” and accordingly the demands are aimed at a “taming of predatory capitalism” and a “return to the social market economy”. The latter is presented as the good form of capitalism; its ingredients consist of a mixture of state imperatives and personal morality-based self-restraint.

But the big question remains: why try to domesticate a predator that has unrestraint and the urge to expand to the point of self-destruction in its blood?

Despite all their ideological differences, both capitalism and socialism/communism have more in common than what divides them. Both are cannibalistic systems that can only survive under the compulsion of ruthless exploitation and destruction of our finite natural and human resources – until they collapse.

The driving force behind our consumer society is innovation. Whether in fashion, design, the automotive industry or architecture etc. – if there is not something new on the table “every five minutes”, we will not be happy. In one area, however, we shy away from any experiment: our economic system is taboo, we even declare that there is no alternative. And we do this even though we know that it is currently getting out of hand. The devastating consequences of the greed system are now visible everywhere. Subconsciously, we all feel that things cannot go on like this.

Whether we take the still growing world population, the foreseeable end of fossil fuels and resources, the climate, declining biodiversity, the destruction of natural resources or social and economic developments: in no area is it possible to project current trends into the near future without reaching catastrophic dimensions.

Where evolution moved in units of millions of years and – when it was fast – millennia, always very carefully feeling its way forward, we are stepping on the gas, making changes every hour. “Global acceleration crisis” is what the astrophysicist Peter Kafka called this phenomenon: we have no time to check the success, to test the effects of an intervention. All new developments must be implemented as quickly and globally as possible in order to recoup the investment. If the consequences are too serious, the system simply intervenes again.

We unhinge the world, although we are not able to then keep it in balance; so it will come crashing down on us and bury us. But since there were many people who levered it in different places, no one will feel responsible, no one will be held accountable – but everyone will bear the consequences.

This is how the alleged homo oeconomicus treats his environment: first he spends a lot of money destroying it, then an army of scientists compiles studies to analyse the mistakes. And finally, he invests huge sums to try and save it.

As long as humans perceive themselves as being above nature and therefore separate, their activities will contribute to destabilisation and imbalances.

It is true that we have been slowly waking up from our “Sleeping Beauty sleep” for some years now and can finally no longer deny the dramatic seriousness of the situation. Even globalisation as a whole, with all its uncontrolled and negative developments, is being called into question. Unfortunately, a lot of time has passed. More than 50 years ago, warnings about the serious effects of destructive economic systems (forest fires, droughts, floods, storms, epidemics, famines, species extinction, etc.) were issued.

Admirable youth movements such as Fridays for Future have sparked debate through their protests and triggered incredible momentum worldwide. At times, they drove more and more politicians from democratic countries to take action. However, in times of the pandemic and new crisis hotspots, other priorities are being set, so that the momentum is increasingly coming to nothing.

Nevertheless, there is an urgent need to analyse whether the solutions are based on the right foundations. As long as we are not prepared to question the economic system in all areas, we will not be able to find the right solutions.

The fundamental question is: do people want to live only on or with the earth in the future?

Is there really no alternative to capitalism other than socialism/communism?

An organisation based in Munich is promoting a completely new concept. The special thing about it is that it takes up the interdependence of natural cycles and is orientated towards the rules of nature.

The socio-ecological economic concept of Equilibrism

“The concept of Equilibrism strives for a balance between ecology, economy, politics, social and cultural issues.At a time when exclusively economic thinking is gaining ground and the economy is becoming omnipotent on a global scale, this goal is more urgent than ever.” With these words, Sir Peter Ustinov supported the endeavours of Equilibrism shortly before his death in his foreword to the book of the same name.

Equilibrism offers a concept that deals with the most important problem areas across the board and at the same time strives for local and global implementation. It is one of the few organisations attempting to break out of the current system.

And just as all parts of the body are equally important and one must not grow unchecked at the expense of the others, neither must human economic activity take precedence over other needs, nor must the utilisation of natural resources by a species show constant growth rates. Everything that is taken from nature must be returned to it in the shortest possible time in order to remain in the cycle.

Equilibrism does not want to work on correcting faulty systems, but to completely renew them by returning to the respective fundamental issues; in this respect it is consistent because it goes to the roots. At the same time, new framework conditions are established. The benchmark is always that they are in harmony with nature.

The concept is biocentric and not anthropocentric. This is the only way an economic system can exist in the long term.

Even if, in the view of Equilibrism, humans are not necessarily the crown of creation, their current role in the continuation of life on this earth is as crucial as the work of a restorer of a damaged work of art. If we use the right materials and see our work as a service to the original, it will be saved. If, on the other hand, we think we have to realise better ideas than the author of the work using means he has developed himself, the existing remnant will also be destroyed.

We Equilibrists believe that the work of evolution was and still is very good overall. We would like to orientate our actions towards interfering with it as little as possible. Within the leisurely development of evolution, there is still enough room for man to manoeuvre for real “progress”, in which there is still room for the existing.