Ecosocialism: A Post-Capitalist Alternative and the Challenges of Transition

 Ecosocialism: A Post-Capitalist Alternative and the Challenges of Transition

Cassandra Toohey [1]

Edited by S A Hamed Hosseini

View and Print PDF

Abstract

Ecosocialism’s principles are in direct response to the catastrophic crises generated by capitalism. Under capitalism, mindless growth has set in motion widespread inequalities, injustices, and environmental catastrophes. In response, various economic and social system alternatives have been proposed and debated. This case study essay will argue that ecosocialism is a viable alternative to capitalism. However, it will require astute pre-emptive planning, as well as a collective shift in mindset towards ecosocialist ideology over capitalist ideology in order to overcome systemic obstacles to be a success. The analysis draws on the experiences of Bolivia under Evo Morales and Ecuador under Rafael Correa, where ecosocialist principles were incorporated into state policies, alongside the Indigenous Buen Vivir framework, which promotes community well-being and ecological harmony. However, these initiatives faced challenges due to structural constraints and contradictions within global capitalism. First, a detailed outline of capitalism and ecosocialism will be given, followed by a discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of ecosocialism. Next will be an analysis of the successes and challenges of ecosocialism in practice, and lastly, the capacity for ecosocialism to ultimately replace capitalism will be evaluated.

Keywords: Post-capitalist Alternatives, Ecosocialism, Anti-capitalist, Anti-capitalist Alternatives, Neoliberalism, Buen Vivir, Sumak Kawsay, Ecosocialist Transitions, Ecosocialism in Practice.

Introduction

Under capitalism, mindless growth has set in motion widespread inequalities, injustices, and environmental catastrophes. In response, various economic and social system alternatives have been proposed and debated. This case study essay will argue that ecosocialism is a viable alternative to capitalism. It will, however, require astute pre-emptive planning, as well as a collective shift in mindset towards ecosocialist ideology over capitalist ideology in order to overcome systemic obstacles to be a success. First, a detailed outline of capitalism and ecosocialism will be given, followed by a discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of ecosocialism. Next will be an analysis of the successes and challenges of ecosocialism in practice, and lastly, the capacity for ecosocialism to ultimately replace capitalism will be evaluated.

Neoliberal capitalism and ecosocialism

Capitalism constitutes the commodification of land, labor, and capital (Wanner, 2015), organizing a system in which “social relations are embedded in the economy, rather than the economy being embedded within social relations” (Wanner, 2015, p. 25). The most potent demonstration of this is in class stratifications that both result from and proliferate the exploitation of labor (Stache, 2019). It is through this mechanism that capitalism is maintained; capitalism relies on labor exploitation of those who do not own the means of production (property and capital) and have no choice but to sell their labor (Stache, 2019; Johns et al., 2003). In addition, capitalism also relies on the exploitation of the natural world and, as such, is exceptionally destructive of the planet (Johns et al., 2003). Subsequently, such natural resources are largely extracted from the Global South and sent to the Global North, resulting in intentional global inequity and ecological destruction (Lalander & Lembke, 2018).

Political change in such a system is difficult because capitalists— that is those who own the means of production and are thus able to accumulate yet more capital— have increasing control over popular culture, corporate media, food systems, and the political system (Fassbinder, 2021), as well as the military, the state and educational institutions (Johns et al., 2003). Capital obsession with accumulation above all else (Johns et al., 2003) incentivizes control over such key social, economic, and political mechanisms, and the outcome is systems that are resistive to anti-capitalist alternatives, and thus increasingly impermeable to change (Fassbinder, 2021).  Is it through these analyses that all forms of capitalism can be understood; (1) the uncapped accumulation of capital via (2) labor exploitation of the global south, lower classes, and nature, by (3) those who own the means of production constituting capital and private property. The objective of capitalism is to operate within a self-regulating ‘free market’ (Wanner, 2015) that rewards those with capital by creating ideal conditions for the accumulation of more capital. It is with this premise that capitalism in all its forms (whether neoliberal, state-controlled, or social-democratic) is argued to be a type of modern slavery born out of historical colonial enterprise (Banerjee, 2021).

Ecosocialism embodies the premise that both humans and nature have a common enemy in capitalism (Stache, 2019). As such, ecosocialism aims to respond directly to the social and ecological crises and injustices of capitalism. While strategies to realize this are lacking, core principles are repeated throughout the literature that most ecosocialist diverges agree on; (1) the means of production being democratically planned and collectively owned (Albert, 2023; Park, 2013), effectively removing class stratifications (Stache, 2019) and the commodification of labor (Johns et al., 2003), (2) prioritizing use-value over exchange-value (Albert, 2023; Johns et al., 2003), (3) decreasing energy and material consumption in the Global North (Albert, 2023), and (4) simultaneously redistributing resources to the Global South (Albert, 2023).

The objective of realizing such principles is to create a way of life for all humans that provides a good standard of living while ideologically situating humans within the ecological system and thus striking a balance between nature and humans (Stache, 2019; Lalander & Lembke, 2018). According to Stache (2019), this can be established by adopting a needs-based economy and a culture of cooperation, both of which are echoed in all four principles. The challenge with establishing such an objective is that it requires “a transformation of revolutionary proportions” (Stache, 2019, p. 143). Such a revolution would need to be democratically realized via a socialist and counterhegemonic movement or organization, likely involving temporary reforms that connect with everyday politics (Stache, 2019).

In order to realize an ecosocialist transformation and establish ongoing sustainability, the efficient utilization and further creation of technologies compatible with ecosocialist sustainability principles (Stache, 2019) is imperative and constitutes an additional obstacle. Just as Stache (2019) highlights the need for a revolution, Lalander and Lembke (2018) speak of the need for a collective critique of development as a first step in acknowledging the need for an ecologically integrated social system. Imperatively, this involves both material transformations and a cultural shift, ensuring that collective needs are met rather than being driven by the pursuit of endless accumulation (Lalander and Lembke, 2018). While cultural mindset shifts are crucial, they must be accompanied by concrete structural changes, such as reclaiming commons, redefining ownership, and promoting ecological stewardship, democratic socio-ecological and economic planning, and post-capitalist governance mechanisms (cf. Hosseini, 2023; Kovel, 2014).

As such, ecosocialism ideology is in stark contrast to capitalism ideology and this constitutes the overarching obstacle we face as a collective in achieving ecosocialism. The imperative to strategize becomes more apparent. Albert (2023) argues that strategies for transformation in the ecosocialist movement are severely lacking and that by pre-emptively analyzing such strategies for transformation, ideal transition pathways and the anticipation of potential crises can be realized, ultimately giving ecosocialism a chance to be implemented. The scope of ecosocialism demonstrates its strengths and weaknesses.

The strengths and weaknesses of ecosocialism

The weaknesses of ecosocialism relate to its requirements for a shift in mindset, its claims to fully address the structural problems of capitalism, as well as the lack of strategy for transitioning from a capitalist system. Many ecosocialists speak to Indigenous knowledges and structures for acting as catalysts and/or examples of ecosocialism (Kovel, 2014; Lalander & Lembke, 2018; Stache, 2019). However, Kovel (2014) notes the difficulty of instilling Indigenous ways of thinking into the collective, which is further compounded if the presence of Indigenous cultures has been suppressed by capitalist domination. In contrast, concerns about romanticizing Indigenous movements have also been raised (Stache, 2019), and it’s important to acknowledge the risk of appropriating or oversimplifying such movements and to respect the autonomy of the peoples, traditions, and ideologies.

While Indigenous ways of thinking can instill ecosocialist ideology, specifically with regard to ecology, it is the political and economic forces that favor capitalist ideology that pose the biggest obstacle. Ecosocialism aims to combat the structural problems of capitalism, and to this degree, there are doubts that economic descaling, consumption reduction, and political devolution, as idealized in ecosocialism, would result in ideal social conditions for an ecologically sustainable and socially just society (Park, 2013).

Examples of this are whether descaled economic communities will have the means to gather resources to develop and effectively utilize eco-friendly technologies (Park, 2013), and localism strategies compound this, raising questions around the scarcity of natural resources and equality issues for areas that lack essential resources (Park, 2013). Echoing this are questions about whether socialist alternatives are capable of only minimizing structural problems in comparison to capitalism, rather than entirely combating them (Johns et al., 2003). For example, Johns et al (2003) ask whether it’s possible to extract what billions of people need or want without some form of social hierarchy and ecological exploitation that renders environments less balanced than they would be otherwise.

Lastly, the detailed strategic planning for ideal trajectories of transition from current (neoliberal) capitalism to ecosocialism is lacking, leaving questions around the tangible step-by-step actions required and ultimately decreasing the likelihood of implementation. In reference to this, it can be argued that rather than negate the feasibility of ecosocialism, such weaknesses instead act as obstacles; growing awareness and education around climate change and social justice issues due to social media means a collective shift in mindset regarding politics and economics is already growing (e.g. use-value over exchange-value is the premise of ‘opportunity’ shops which have been growing in popularity) and need only be enhanced; concerns for ecosocialism’s capacity to address structural problems do not negate the massive progress that would be realized via its implementation, and lastly, strategic deficiency can be remedied if ecosocialists come together to formulate trajectories and plans of action.

Ecosocialism’s strengths lay in its ability to confront all forms of capitalism, including the ‘green’ forms of capitalism (Albert, 2023) by: challenging corporate violence inherent in capitalism (Chertkovskaya & Paulsson, 2021), outlining a mode of production that directly addresses accumulation and ecological crises (Kovel, 2014), as well as address social inequalities by removing class struggles via labor exploitation (Stache, 2019). As such, echoing Wanner’s (2015) argument on ecosocialism requiring revolutionary measures, it is precisely for this reason that ecosocialism is so alluring, with its revolutionary implications.

Ecosocialism in practice

As Hickel (2023) outlined, in the wake of an ecological crisis (climate change) and a social crisis (intersectional inequalities), a political solution that aims to prioritize ecological crises cannot succeed if it does not simultaneously prioritize the social crisis. As such, both aspects are intentionally synthesized in ecosocialism; the ecosocialist perspective views nature as a necessity for the survival of humans (Lalander & Lembke, 2018). Consequently, ecosocialism is likely, at least in comparison to capitalism, to solve the ecological and sustainability crises born out of capitalism. Our current relationship with nature constitutes an alienation from ourselves as members of nature; ecosocialism aims to respect our capacity to create ecosystems rather than simply inhabit them, by emancipating labor and creating human/natural ecosystems (Johns et al., 2003).

Ecological considerations, constituting a core value of ecosocialism, add to its credibility in addressing these concerns; however, the ecosocialist experience in Bolivia under the presidency of Evo Morales, and in Ecuador under the presidency of Rafael Correa, provides arguments for its inability to meet such demands. Morales and Correa attempted to implement an ecosocialist social system, even going so far as to grant the Earth constitutional rights (Pillay, 2020; Lalander, 2016).

However, their governments faced systemic constraints—rather than ecosocialist failures per se, their struggles were largely shaped by the structural pressures of global capitalism. The social justice aspects of their campaigns were ultimately prioritized, as the push to lift people out of poverty clashed with reliance on resource extraction to fund social welfare programs (Aguirre & Cooper, 2010; Lalander, 2017; Lalander, 2016).

Both Morales’ and Correa’s presidencies serve as examples of attempts to initiate an ecosocialist transition while simultaneously navigating the (neoliberal) capitalist system. The underlying issue with Morales’ approach was the absence of a strategy toward interrupting economic means of development (Aguirre & Cooper, 2010), providing similar arguments for that of Correa’s approach. Planning alternative ways for the accumulation of resources by citizens (removing economic barriers to food, for example), or finding alternative ways to fund welfare programs that avoid the exploitation of natural resources, may have resulted in a smoother transition and more effective implementation.

These suggestions do not imply that alternative measures are easy or obvious—on the contrary, political and economic forces have likely resisted them. This tension, highlighting a major obstacle for ecosocialism, also comprises demonstrations for how such obstacles can be addressed; Morales (and Correa) may exemplify ideal ‘hybrid’ types that are able to navigate both the political sphere and subsequent environmental trade-offs, while also succeeding at implementing radical change (Aguirre & Cooper, 2010). While neither nation’s implementation constitutes an ideal ecosocialist execution, Morales and Correa’s successes demonstrate areas where movement toward ecosocialist governance can emerge.

Furthermore, Indigenous movements, specifically alternatives such as Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay (Lalander, 2016) have been recognized as ecosocialist in principle, borne out of Indigenous peoples’ collective experiences of lower-class positioning and traditional ecological sustainability practices (Lalander & Lembke, 2018). Buen Vivir, meaning “living well” or “living fully” (Caria & Domínguez, 2016, p.19), and Sumak Kawsay meaning “good life” (Lalander & Lembke, 2018), constitutes ideas and mechanisms for living in harmony with nature, valuing Indigenous principles, meeting the basic needs required for a good life, state responsibility regarding equality and social justice, as well as democracy (Lalander & Lembke, 2018; Caria & Domínguez, 2016).

Such Indigenous philosophies are what inspired Morales and Correa’s ecosocialist movements and were ironically the movements that subsequently criticized them for not upholding the ecological sustainability promises of their campaigns (Lewis, 2018; Lalander, 2016). With the influence of Buen Vivir on Bolivia and Ecuador’s attempt at implementing what was called Samuk Kawsay socialism (Lalander, 2016), it was the Indigenous ideologies that ultimately generated ecosocialist attempts within both nations. As such, within the political and economic backdrop of capitalism, the ultimate question becomes this: Is it possible to preserve the constitutional rights of nature and Indigenous peoples while still justifying natural resource extraction for social welfare? This, in turn, becomes a key concern for ecosocialism implementation, speaking again for a need to both strategize and address the ideologies governing the mindset of the masses regarding political and economic purposes within the nation.

The capacities and constraints of ecosocialism to replace neoliberal capitalism

Ecosocialist visions for systems of organization after implementation are well-formulated in the literature, but their major challenge remains the transition. Unlike reformist approaches, ecosocialism requires structural transformations that cannot simply emerge from crises alone (Johns et al., 2003). Albert (2023) argues that ecosocialist transitions will unfold in a hostile political environment, facing capital flight, far-right resistance, cyberattacks, and capitalist counter-mobilization. He critiques the tendency to focus on idealized end-states rather than anticipating threats and strategizing countermeasures. While he does not prescribe a singular pathway, he calls for a systematic exploration of strategies, including building resilient movements, leveraging political institutions, and resisting reactionary forces.

Albert also challenges the assumption that crises will automatically lead to ecosocialist transformation. While crises may destabilize capitalism, they create contested openings that could just as easily be seized by reactionary forces. Without strategic preparation, crises risk leading to authoritarian backlash, capitalist adaptation, or green co-optation. He stresses the need for proactive planning, movement-building, and counter-mobilization to push systemic change.

Furthermore, the use of crises to catalyze change echoes Stache’s (2019) acknowledgment of requiring a revolutionary transformation, as well as technological advancements to establish ecosocialist principles around decreasing energy and material consumption. The ecological and social crises resulting from climate change are already fueling discourse on ‘green’ capitalism, as policymakers and businesses seek solutions that remain within the capitalist framework. While green capitalism does not resolve ecological crises (Wanner, 2015; Albert, 2023), some authors argue that its discourse could be strategically leveraged to implement alternative policies that open pathways toward ecosocialism.

For example, the Green New Deal (GND), which promotes the expansion of ‘green’ technology and ‘green’ jobs (Albert, 2023), could—if shaped by ecosocialist forces—contribute to Degrowth-oriented energy transitions, particularly by embedding renewable energy into society in ways that reduce overall energy consumption (Chertkovskaya & Paulsson, 2021; Albert, 2023). However, while GND may provide opportunities to push ecosocialist strategies into mainstream discourse, its co-optation by capital and state actors remains a significant risk. Rather than assuming it to be a natural stepping stone to ecosocialism, it must be understood as a contested political space, one where ecosocialist movements must actively intervene to prevent it from becoming a mechanism for stabilizing capitalism rather than dismantling it.

Degrowth discourse can be intentionally guided into other fields, such as agriculture, which can generate discourse around equitable distribution of natural resources regarding food and land. This may strengthen existing Indigenous movements (such as Buen Vivir and Samuk Kawsay), with specific regard to environmental protection (Caria & Domínguez, 2016). This may encourage the creation and adoption of more Indigenous ways of thinking and, via shared principles and specific ecosocialist-leaning maneuvers regarding politics and economics, ensure ecosocialist implementation. It is in the discussion of such pathways (in which crises are utilized to catalyze less confrontational anti-capitalist movements) that ecosocialist transitions can be structured and strategized. While (neoliberal) capitalism is an unfavorable foundation to begin with, as demonstrated by Bolivia and Ecuador’s difficulties, the capacity for success is still evident when conceptualized strategically. Implementation of such strategies, however, is likely to be co-opted by capitalists and far-right politicians for capitalist motives, speaking again to the need for a collective mindset shift by countering capitalist ideology and motives with ecosocialist ideology. This concept is precarious, and Kovel (2014) notes that the likelihood of a collective mindset shift is low.

The capacity for ecosocialism to tangibly replace capitalism is outlined in its intention to ethically address all aspects of life on Earth. Capitalism’s sole strength is in its ability to drive innovation for the pursuit of profit. Those with more profit experience a higher quality of life, thus constituting the individualist competitive incentive of neoliberalist ideology. It is this pursuit for unlimited growth for growth’s sake that simultaneously creates a system of organization that generates social inequality and injustices, as well as ecological destruction.

Ecosocialism in comparison, aims to meet the needs of all humans, without financial determination, in the pursuit of social equality and justice, as well as ecological sustainability. While climate change has been a dominating catalyst for ecosocialist discourse, ecosocialism’s capacity to solve ecological unsustainability and crisis harbored by capitalism is not the driving force behind ecosocialism; it is the exploited and marginalized peoples’ need to fight for their own survival, as opposed to the species survival, that makes ecosocialism a viable alternative for consideration (Stache, 2019). It is in this capacity to address, in good faith, both social crises and ecological crises that give ecosocialism its capacity to ultimately replace capitalism; individual needs disproportionately met by capitalism will be proportionally met by ecosocialism, and financial incentives driving innovation will be met with community incentives for collective advancement. However, the modes of transition that have been conceptualized, namely using crises as catalysts and using ecosocialist ideology to incite a collective mindset shift, are precarious and have yet to be attempted.

Conclusion

Ecosocialism’s principles are in direct response to the catastrophic crises generated by capitalism. This constitutes its strength: its capacity to address life’s social and ecological dichotomy in good faith. Its weaknesses constitute the lack of strategy theorized for transition, along with the collective shift to ecosocialist ideology regarding systemic obstacles, such as in politics and economics, that are required to maintain an ecosocialist trajectory. When attempted in practice, the tension between navigating the current (neoliberal) capitalist system while attempting to implement ecosocialist structures of organization resulted in conditions in which social issues were prioritized over ecological ones. However, rather than serving as evidence of the limited capacity for ecosocialism, it demonstrates both obstacles for strategizing and circumstances by which ecosocialist initiatives can presently emerge (i.e., in welfare settings).

Modes by which academics suggest a transition can occur— using social and ecological crises as catalysts, as well as by inciting a ‘mindset shift’ from individualistic capitalist ideology to that of collective ecosocialist ideology— have not been demonstrated and may therefore represent strategies that would succeed. Numerous ecosocialist academics have outlined the value of utilizing other anti-capitalist alternatives, such as a Green New Deal and Degrowth, when taking advantage of predicted crises that can further catalyze humanity toward an ecosocialist future.

Through comparing ecosocialism to capitalism, exploring the strengths and weaknesses of ecosocialism, and analyzing settings in which ecosocialism has been implemented, this essay has demonstrated that the ecosocialist system of organization is indeed capable of replacing capitalism and harboring better social and ecological outcomes; however, its downfall is its stark contrast to the hegemony of capitalism and the subsequent magnitude of transitional obstacles. In light of this, and in referencing Stache’s (2019) argument for a transformation of revolutionary proportions, it is precisely the devastating developments of (neoliberal) capitalism and the subsequent revolutionary implications of ecosocialism that make it so deserving of consideration.

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. S. A Hamed Hosseini for providing the opportunity to develop this assessment into a peer-reviewed academic essay, as well as for his editorial review and encouraging comments. Additionally, I would like to thank Amanda Falconer for her informative feedback on my original essay.

References

Aguirre, J. C., & Cooper, E. S. (2010). Evo Morales, Climate Change, and the Paradoxes of a Social-Movement Presidency. Latin American Perspectives, 37(4), 238–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X10376362

Albert, M. J. (2023). Ecosocialism for Realists: Transitions, Trade-Offs, and Authoritarian Dangers. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 34(1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2022.2106578

Banerjee, B. (2021). Modern Slavery Is an Enabling Condition of Global Neoliberal Capitalism: Commentary on Modern Slavery in Business. Business & Society, 60(2), 415–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650319898478

Caria, S., & Domínguez, R. (2016). Ecuador’s “Buen vivir”: A New Ideology for Development. Latin American Perspectives, 43(1), 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X15611126

Chertkovskaya, E., & Paulsson, A. (2021). Countering corporate violence: Degrowth, ecosocialism and organising beyond the destructive forces of capitalism. Organization (London, England), 28(3), 405–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508420975344

Fassbinder, S. D. (2021). Ecosocialism and catastrophe. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 32(3), 132–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2021.1996745

Hickel, J. (2023). The Double Objective of Democratic Ecosocialism. Monthly Review (New York. 1949), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.14452/MR-075-04-2023-08_2

Hosseini, S. A. H. (2023) The Well-Living Paradigm: Reimagining Quality of Life in Our Turbulent World, Discover Global Society, 1(19), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44282-023-00022-8

Johns, D., Kovel, J., & Löwy, M. (2003). Has Ecosocialism Passed on the Tough Questions? Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 14(2), 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455750308565527

Kovel, J. (2014). Ecosocialism as a Human Phenomenon. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 25(1), 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2013.879800

Lalander, R. (2017). Ethnic rights and the dilemma of extractive development in plurinational Bolivia. The International Journal of Human Rights, 21(4), 464–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2016.1179869

Lalander, R., & Lembke, M. (2018). The Andean Catch-22: ethnicity, class and resource governance in Bolivia and Ecuador. Globalizations, 15(5), 636–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2018.1453189

Lalander, R. (2016). The Ecuadorian Resource Dilemma: Sumak Kawsay or Development? Critical Sociology, 42(4–5), 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920514557959

Lewis, K. (2018). The “Buen Vivir” and “Twenty-First Century Socialism”: Discursive legitimation and UK broadsheet newspaper reporting of “post-neoliberal” politics in Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia. Journalism Studies (London, England), 19(8), 1160–1179. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1264273

Park, M. (2013). Imagining a Just and Sustainable Society: A Critique of Alternative Economic Models in the Global Justice Movement. Critical Sociology, 39(1), 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920511411319

Pillay, D. (2020). Happiness, wellbeing and ecosocialism – a radical humanist perspective. Globalizations, 17(2), 380–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2019.1652470

Stache, C. (2019). Review of Red-Green Revolution: The Politics and Technology of Ecosocialism by Victor Wallis. International Critical Thought, 9(1), 142–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/21598282.2019.1585278

Wanner, T. (2015). The New “Passive” of the Green Economy and Growth Discourse: Maintaining the “Sustainable Development” of Neoliberal Capitalism. New Political Economy, 20(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2013.866081

____________________________________________________________________

About the Publication

Published by Common Alternatives Network. Under our Creative Commons BY-NC-ND copyright, you may freely republish our content, without alteration, for non-commercial purposes as long as you include an explicit attribution to Common Alternatives and a link to its homepage at www.thecommonalts.com

Cite as: Toohey, C (2024). Ecosocialism: A Post-Capitalist Alternative and the Challenges of Transition. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28026.20169

Retrieved from https://thecommonalts.com/eco-socialism/

____________________________________________________________________

About Common Alternatives Initiative

‘Common Alternatives’ comprises networks of academics, activists, academic-activists, intellectuals, think tanks, initiatives, organizations, policy advocates, and university students that through several shared projects explore/develop/examine new social concepts, ideologies, practices, policies, programs, experiences, and case studies. The projects particularly aim to construct a more profound understanding of the root causes of the global crises and to promote game-changing responses, workable solutions, and feasible alternative systems/models/projects, as well as strategic actions necessary to realize those alternatives.

[1] CASSANDRA TOOHEY is doing her Bachelor of Social Science majoring in Sociology and Anthropology at the University of Newcastle. This essay is an extended and peer-reviewed version of her research essay for SOCA2400- Future Societies (delivered by Dr S A Hamed Hossieni in 2024) for which she received High Distinction. To inquire about this paper, please contact: common.alternatives@gmail.com or hamed.hosseini@newcastle.edu.au.

About Author

commonism

See author's posts