O.K., it looks like a lot of the discussion here has nothing to do with the orignial proposition. Much of that problem is mine in that I assumed the question was the wholly represented. I later looked at the link and the “model” discusses sustainability, not the form of government.
Now, @Lightlyseared your discussion of the Nazi movement has little bearing here. They weren’t anti-capitalists in your sense of the meaning. After all the largest corporations in Germany and even the world were supported by Nazism. Mercedes Benz, Messerschmidt, and Ford Motor Company were heartily embraced by the German government.
Communism in the Soviet model or even the Chinese model wasn’t (after a few brief years) really communism, it became more interested in control rather than helping its citizens.
No large country can, apparently, sustain its founding principles for long. Communism failed in China until they embraced certain principles of Capitalism, Communism failed under the weight of attempting to control production and consumerism, and democracy is collapsing because you can’t have tru capitalism and a free electorate. Notice these “voter fraud” laws passing in many states. The prime reason for those laws is the reduce voters to the group that supports unrestricted capitalism.
The only way to have a free society is to limit the exploitation of the population and a sustainable economy would do that. Of course the establlished government and political groups are fighting against that. In all likelihood, a sustainable economy will only be build on the ruins of existing ones. Fortunately I will not live long enough to see it because the change will mean the loss of much of what we know and love. Unfortunately my children and grandchildren will probably have to build themselves back up from the coming ruin.
It is evident that the current government will not change without much destruction and many deaths.