Ecology in the USSR:
So, leftie-normies denounce that capitalism Is destroying the earth.
I love my planet like anybody else, but i dont think this is inherent to economic System; instead its the product of non regulated human use and abuse.
Nevertheless they try to imply that communism wasn't affected in the same way (chernobyl probably the best reply).
What other accidents/ abuse to the planet , do you know that occured on the USSR? (Source are always welcome)
Aral Sea is the one I recall right now, but the list is huge. They changed the course of big rivers too, fucking entire regions.
Aral sea depletion
That lake where they dumped a whole lot of nuclear waste
Lefties generally don't support the USSR.
It's like saying that BP lobbist generally don't support the spill
This
Then they go back to "communism was never really used" or some similar thing
environmental issues is another thing they love to criticize capitalism for but when you ask them how it would be any different under socialism they can't answer
except capitalism is 'destroying the earth', as in, contemporary capitalist global economy is catastrophic for the planets ecology, the biosphere as a whole and individual ecosistems both, and no one ever had any illusions about soviet ecological consciusness, least of all the soviets
one thing i can think of would definitely be cold war shenenigans like the tzar bomba, and silly things like developing a whole line of plutonium powered tractors, then ending up just dumbing the machines all around siberia as they simply stoped being used or proved too expensive to maintain, or deathtraps, or all of that
still the biggest ecological disaster was the breakup of the soviet union itself, the chaos that was the post soviet nineties combined with transition and all that political and economic mess meant whatever standards, even if only safety and health wise, that soviets did have, and they did have them, went out the window, and whatever hazards there were, like stockpiled toxic materials or waste, was just left to whatever random faith was destined to ex-soviet infrastructure in general
but realy in this respect both systems are quite similar since industrial and technological development, the logic of technical progress and maximasing output is pretty much the same, capitalism is more ecocidal simply because its more efficient, look at china for example where both systems fuse into one big ecological disaster
>Nevertheless they try to imply that communism wasn't affected in the same way
I'm a leftist and i literally never heard anyone say this ever.
The ussr was a shitshow, ecology included.
Just because you say thats not a valid argument doesn't mean its not. I'm not advocating for communism, I'm just saying you're retarded
What are you talking about? Are you daft?
The criticism of "capitalism" in regards to the environment is extremely simple, capitalism generally has less government restrictions on business, such as those that protect the environment. There is an inherent conflict of interest because companies do profit more dumping waste into a river than properly disposing of it, that is unless a big bad lefty fines them for it.
"How would it be any different" is pretty easily checked when you see the environmental records of countries that don't practice rampant capitalism.
ironically, the only green leaning systems are some nordic socialists and nazis.
>"How would it be any different" is pretty easily checked when you see the environmental records of countries that don't practice rampant capitalism.
bar few exceptions its not a very shiny record, marxist countries were big on ideological notions of ecology, being ecologicaly conscious, having a sort of cult of 'oh how pure and beautifull our countries nature and landscapes are' and recicling and such crap, but the actual way they handled the enviroment practicaly was simply as state owned capital they can do anything with and if theres problems just say magic words like 'progress' and 'job creation'
realy most 'green' policies in developed countries are due to the popular uproar about such things in the 70 and 80, this creating a notion in politics that ecology and the state of the enviroment are also important both as election year issues and as national interests, and in communist countries there was rarely any popular uproar about anything
Not him but... Yeap, you are advocating for communism.
Each Time the theory was tested in real life, things went bananas. There's something else wrong with human Nature that this theory doesnt recognize.
Maybe is time for you guys to recheck your theory.
there isnt tho, theres parts about it that the ideology abstracts or negates, just like all ideologies abstract and negate things they dont like, but theres nothing about communism that goes against 'human nature', examples of failed communist economies and atrocities comited in its name are full blown manifetsations of the most human of 'human nature', just like all failed systems, social and political disasters and mass murder are, and just like failed capitalist economies, states, financial crysis and economic disasters equaly abound
its just that when a communist state or economy fails communism fails with it, while a capitalist state or economy can collapse x times over, itl just get more capitalist till people figure you have to decapitate the thing so it stops getting up like a zombie, and you have a revolution or insurection and the story repeats itself
imagine if democracy 'failed' that way, not in the sense that failed and disfunctional democracies are legion, but in the sense of the french revolution ending in eventual complete failure and going back to monarchy or some total chaos, like if the monarchist coalitions against the republic were sucessful or if in some other way things ended in critical failure, then 25 years on people would look back and note how democrats talk a lot of shit, but what can they realy offer except mass slaughter, political chaos and social degeneracy, and besides its prooven to be a failure because 'human nature' is against it - this actualy was a thing in 1800 century europe, especialy after 1848 did end in failure in some parts
my point is theres no such thing as a social, political or economic system that is against 'human nature', if anything they are all products of it and facilitated by it, its just 'human nature' to fuck up big time
It was an industrial accident.
I agree. What i dont like Is just " your XXXX Is total shit, check this evidence. My shit you say? Well Is not my shit actually"
We are flawed, and the planet takes its toll. Assuming that XXXX System Is the problem, its wrong and a way to pasa the problem.
Communism is totally ineffective economic system. They couldn't destroy earth even if they tried. There was millions of km2s untouched nature against one catastrophe in USSR.
That's like asking for someone's information, for insurance purposes, after they crashed into your car, except it wasn't them, it was someone else who had a similar looking car.
The majority of modern Leftists don't sympathize with the USSR.
Remember, the 'New' Left that was born in the 1960s is completely different from 'Old Guard' Leftism, which concerned itself more with the rights of urban workers and the advocacy of unions: this 'New' Left, on the other hand, is more concerned with what some might term 'identity politics', as well as issues such as the environment. You can still see the divide in the U.S., where Democrats (Centre-Left) are split into the general Democrats and the Blue-Dog caucus
So no: it's inaccurate to say Leftists support(ed) the USSR. You're going to have to specify which Leftists, and I am sure that the Leftists you are referring to are 'New' post-68 Leftists.
The USSR's environmental record was absolutely atrocious. One tidbit that the greens should probably pay more attention to is their extermination of whales. In 1986 alone, the Soviet Union killed almost 50,000 humpback whales for essentially fertilizer, and because some idiot bureaucrat in Moscow ordered it. From 1948 to 1973, the Soviet Union caught and killed 48,477 humpback whales, then told IWC it only caught 2,710.
By contrast, you know how everyone complains about Japanese whaling? Japan hunts about a thousand whales per year, 95% of which are the abundant minke whales. They killed 50 last year.
For more details on centrally planned stupidity, see:
psmag.com
>So, leftie-normies denounce that capitalism Is destroying the earth.
>I love my planet like anybody else, but i dont think this is inherent to economic System; instead its the product of non regulated human use and abuse.
The single greatest enemy of capitalism is regulation, which is why it is considered inherently destructive for the environment.
>Nevertheless they try to imply that communism wasn't affected in the same way (chernobyl probably the best reply).
This is anecdotal at best. I've never met anybody that's made this claim and if they did they are hilariously misinformed.
I have met more than a few, which claim some form of utopía was post with the USSR (and the rest Is bad propaganda) Maybe is something of my country/university. (Argentina/UBA). Who knows?
>"How would it be any different" is pretty easily checked when you see the environmental records of countries that don't practice rampant capitalism.
You should look up the history of Maoist China before you make that statement.
Not a good example. Compare it to Cuba and get better results
>Aral Sea getting fucked up
>anything before 1985
>By contrast, you know how everyone complains about Japanese whaling?
Might have something to do with it being 2016 now and not 1950....
>By contrast
>Nippon didnutting wrong
Its not the same thing, offcourse 1950 Is not 2016 ,dont extrapolate capitalist pig
>(You)
Socialists are humanists. They believe inherently that the nebulous concept of 'man' should take precedent over anything else - leading to the genocides under Stalin (whom a swarm of /leftypol/ insurgents will be quick to """""correct""""" me on), environmental destruction to create more industry for "the workers", ecological disasters like the Mayak complex dumping 76 million cubic meters of waste into the Techa River, anthrax leaks from biological weapons testing faculties.
How is Maoist China not a good example? I suppose that Castro building and ice cream parlor the size of a city block is an example of a good environmental policy?
Bit of a strawman, as I don't think any leftist would claim the USSR (much less China) was anymore ecologically sensitive than the west.
I mean, at one point, the USSR had planned to set up satellites with giant mirrors to warm northern Siberia and melt the permafrost. (I suppose we all thought bigger in the 60's.)
They do have a point in that central planning has more of an opportunity to be ecologically sensitive, vs a more free market model, which, being profit driven, pretty much has a mandate to be the opposite. At the same time, however, central control also has the same opportunity to be environmentally destructive and on a much greater scale (deliberately so, rather than incidentally so).
In a "true" communist model, it could go either way. Most modern communes are rigged up by hippies, so they tend to be extremely ecologically minded, but in a world made up entirely of communes, individual communes would be entirely sovereign, and could easily choose to exploit their own resources in a way that was environmentally detrimental to others. As a result of this, among other things, eventually communes would ban together to defend themselves from exploitation (and/or to defend their ability to exploit), so you'd end up right back where you started from. This being among the reasons that even "true" communism doesn't work, save on very tiny scales. Eventually, some communes will centralize and become a nation again, and those that do will have a staggering advantage over those that do not.
Name one bad thing done by Cuba , regarding their environment...
I'll wait...
Yeah, but there's nothing inherently environmentally friendly about totalitarianism, that dictatorship, with its limited land mass, just happened to be. It can go either way, and when it goes the other way, it can actually be much worse than corporate environmental damage, which is at least is incidental, rather than deliberate. Same with communes, in the long run.
Granted, unregulated capitalism is inherently environmentally unfriendly, but almost no one is stupid enough to try to run completely unregulated capitalism - just stupid enough to advocate it.
Any philosophy taken to its ultimate conclusion is ultimately poisonous. What ya need is a balance of strategies cancelling each other's negatives out.
>Socialists are humanists. They believe inherently that the nebulous concept of 'man' should take precedent over anything else - leading to the genocides under Stalin
What
I mean, aside from misrepresenting a position, please tell me how "humans are a goal instead of means to a goal" logically develops into "we need to kill humans".
^^
but that exact thing would happen under any system. Unless development seizes altoghter
>capitalism generally has less government restrictions on business
This sounds so fucking retarded. Under other systems the business does not exist, generally nor does the government either. Capitalism can prevent the degradation of the environment as much as it harms it
No. Leftist states have done nothing but fail. Capitalist states have eliminated so many of the very things leftists fight against
>'New' Left, on the other hand, is more concerned with what some might term 'identity politics'
So the new left are liberals, or centrists. Funny how the left has become so irrelevant.
But Whig, you are the lefty.
>The single greatest enemy of capitalism is regulation
No it isn't. Regulation can create artificial market mechanisms that allow a natural monopoly to function as if in a competitive environment, for example.
Cuba was stagnant up until the 00's
>lmao tumblr memes XDDD communism can work
How does it feel, leftist, knowing that the left wing parties nowadays are all good goys sucking on the neoliberal capitalist cock? How does it feel to have literally never won the economic argument? How does it feel to have to settle on a few government programs as evidence that you guys are "right?"
I mean, ffs, you faggots can't even win the argument that NATURAL MONOPOLIES shouldn't exist. All the good goy capitalist has to do is put on a few good regulations and all the negative effects of a monopoly is gone but all the benefits of market control stay. I mean, c'mon. And let's look at you on healthcare. We've all seen how bad the American system is, right? And we've seen how successful single payer is, s-so maybe you've won an argument - wait, oh wait, Singapore's MARKET-BASED insurance system is the best value for money in the world. Damn it, fucking neoliberal capitalists, maybe that's why our left wing parties are nothing but another hungry mouth sucking on old piggy's titties?
Name one capitalist failed state and no, depressions or recessions don't count. In fact most of the time depressions are made worse by state intervention.
Yes, although you should qualify what you mean by that. The new left has social liberalism as a unifying theme. Economically they sit on a wide spectrum which includes:
* social democracy
* democratic socialism (sometimes)
* various flavours of neoliberalism/classical liberalism
* liberalism-lite (see: the pirate parties)
* very occasionally socialism (as in the ecosocialists, who are really an offshoot of the green movement)
About the only economic positions you can rule out are corporatism and protectionism.
Suck my fucking neoliberal piggy cock leftist scum. Acknowledge your masters just like your leftist parties have
They don't like the USSR because it failed and collapsed so they're trying to backpedal about it.
In the 1920s all of European salon Marxists were fully behind the USSR and nobody claimed it isn't real socialism like they do now.
Honest question for any of you memers:
How in a system of pure unfetted capitalism with strictly defined and upheld property rights would 'common' goods and land not be exploited?
By common goods I mean things like the air and the atmosphere both regoinally and globally, or soil and groundwater or the oceans?
Futhermore in areas of wilderness or that are inhospitable to humans would these areas of land be privately owned or remain 'common'?
Finally how would how would non-human life be able to defend their life and property assuming it is not privately owned. What interests would a purely capitalist system have in defending and maintaining existing ecological order?
In a ancap society would you be able to own say a piece of the middle of the pacific ocean? (which seems absurb to me) and what if said owner had no interest in not polluting this land for the sealife and surrounding ocean.
How would global infringes on private property be treated (say ghg emissions for example)?
>in ancap society
Stopped reading there.
>In the 1920s all of European salon Marxists were fully behind the USSR and nobody claimed it isn't real socialism like they do now.
No one has claimed it wasn't real "socialism". But even the USSR itself stated it wasn't real *communism*. They claimed their totalitarian state was the first step towards creating a communist utopia... Despite the fact that, by its centralized nature, it was even further from said pipedream than raw corporatism, and the government, of course, never made a single step towards giving up their power and breaking the nation into a series of communes based on areas of production.
False advertising, sadly, is not unique to capitalism.
>False advertising, sadly, is not unique to capitalism.
Socialism is nothing but false advertising
>in an ancap
Honestly anarchism is just the incoherent rantings from a cooked philosopher
They weren't, though. Plenty European socialists like Rosa Luxembourg denounced the USSR for its autocracy and lack of actual worker control.
To the Ruskies, credit, they made a pretty nifty lake.