the text from the international Economics for Ecology conference in Ukraine don’t give us a real view of the situation. Now, we see in the Ukraine the results. Fascism, supported from the west.

you wrote:
“Erich Fromm and “The Art of Loving” was cited as one of the primary influences on the 1996 paper for People-Centered Economic Development.”

This is our perspective. The people are important and not the institutions. In our history we see, the conflicts are not between left or right, capitalism or state capitalism. The conflicts are between private and state power versus peoples power.

Erich Fromm was a “Freidenker”, a free thinker. He never accept any religious dogmatism like the capitalistic economy, private or state. he look to what exist. This we have to do.

Michel Bauwens want to create a “cooperative capitalism”. But he never can do it. The people don’t like this shit. This warmed-old coffee. The principles are the same like in the private/state capitalism. It’s not the third way.

The core of our perspectives is like “People-Centered Economic Development”. Not the “Development of Underdevelopment” (Andre Gunder Frank), what we have today in the world. For this we desolve the money-system. But the most important step is the dissolution of private ownership of common resources. Then the doors are open and we can go through.

many greetings, willi
Quetzaltenango, Guatemala
[email protected]

“Along the way, in the process of attempting different forms of economics from capitalism to communism, we have managed to pollute and contaminate our own environment to the extent of causing environmental change to the point of quite possible catastrophe for people around the world. Neither the capitalist system nor the communist system – nor the various fascist systems attempted in such as Germany, Spain and Italy – lived up to their promises. Communist and fascist systems became infamous for mass murder. The Western capitalist was less murderous. Overall, capitalism was able to produce a much larger middle class of people between rich and poor, and has gained precedence due to making safe and secure life possible for more people. But, it’s various methods over the past 100 years left millions of people to suffer and die more indirectly than outright murder. Those people were dismissed as relatively unimportant, mostly left to die from deprivation rather than outright execution. In all systems, some rationale was created to either dismiss people and leave them to die, or, kill people outright. In the end, for the victims, the result was identical.”

“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.”

Erich Fromm and “The Art of Loving” was cited as one of the primary influences on the 1996 paper for People-Centered Economic Development.

why Michel Bauwens published this article. If we speak about communism, then never we can create any relation to Lenin, Stalin or Trotzky.

Our reference is the Commune of Paris, are the people like Michail Bakunin and Pjotr Kropotkin. Communism have to do with Commune, with local self-organisation and local self-determination.

So why want to make Michel Bauwens this big confusion? Why does he use such a text full of stupidities and lies?

many greetings, willi
Quetzaltenango, Guatemala