For all those that think environmentalism is petty-bourgeois and irrelevant

[Revy]

World's poor overwhelmed by rubbish (photos). (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/jun/05/waste-world-environment-day?lightbox=1)

[Die Neue Zeit]

It depends on the environmental issues being covered, comrade. I have no problems with "eco-Marxism" because it still emphasizes class issues (labour being the "father" of wealth and nature being the "mother"). Take, for example, the struggle for a 32-hour workweek, which has participatory-democratic, leisure, and also environmental issues (less stuff made and less work-travel fuel used).

Contrast that, however, with the politics of official Green parties, although I wouldn't call such official, non-worker politics petit-bourgeois (since small-business owners are averse to environmental regulation).

[ZeroNowhere]

And how is this relevant to environmentalism?

[Ismail]

Environmentalism (in the sense that "we want to clean up rubbish" and end capitalism's destructive policies towards the environment) is a pretty obvious component of socialism. When a revolution occurs, the environment will be handled with care. That's all there is too it. Until then, stories like these can be used to our advantage.

In Albania, propaganda stressed the importance of the environment and the state encouraged people to ride on bicycles. Vehicles (which were communally owned) were rare outside of jobs and with the exception of outdated industry causing pollution, Albania did a pretty good job with cleaning the environment.

[Josef Balin]

In Albania, propaganda stressed the importance of the environment and the state encouraged people to ride on bicycles. Vehicles (which were communally owned) were rare outside of jobs and with the exception of outdated industry causing pollution, Albania did a pretty good job with cleaning the environment.
You mean in Albania Hoxha was terrible at getting any job of any merit finished for his people economically so they couldn't afford cars and had propaganda about it.

[Ismail]

You mean in Albania Hoxha was terrible at getting any job of any merit finished for his people economically so they couldn't afford cars and had propaganda about it.I wouldn't call industrializing, eliminating malaria, and bringing electricity to the entire country to be "terrible". These were great gains and if you don't consider Albania to have been socialist, at least it shows the power of central planning.

Albania was the poorest country in Europe. It got out of WWII with not only just about everything destroyed, but it still faced tribalism, over 90% illiteracy and a life expectancy below 40. When the bicycle came to Albania in the 20's many tribesmen thought it was a weapon. It doesn't take much intellectual strength to say that Albania from the period of 1944-1985 accomplished a lot.

[Vanguard1917]

It depends on the environmental issues being covered, comrade. I have no problems with "eco-Marxism" because it still emphasizes class issues (labour being the "father" of wealth and nature being the "mother"). Take, for example, the struggle for a 32-hour workweek, which has participatory-democratic, leisure, and also environmental issues (less stuff made and less work-travel fuel used).

Making 'less stuff' is not the aim of reducing working hours. The aim of socialism is to increase the productivity of labour so that society can produce more with less labour time. Reducing travel is not an aim of socialism either; in fact, as a system of production based on international integration and cooperation, socialism will likely promote far greater human mobility and travel, on a global scale, than that which exists under the capitalist system with its barriers to movement. The economic nationalism upheld by environmentalism -- that we all need to travel less and 'buy local' -- is certainly not compatible with the project of international socialism.

As to the OP, if poor countries cannot effectively deal with their waste, it tends to be because of their poverty -- i.e. a lack of economic development, something which, btw, environmentalism celebrates.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Envrionmentalism is irrelevant when it is promoted by bourgeois politicians and figures. That is because they have left out one of the key factors which contributes to the degradation of our planet: Capitalism. Our envrionmentalism, the desire to end capitalism, is the REAL environmentalism.

[bcbm]

As to the OP, if poor countries cannot effectively deal with their waste, it tends to be because of their poverty -- i.e. a lack of economic development, something which, btw, environmentalism celebrates.

Rich countries ship a great deal of waste to poor countries...

[Josef Balin]

I wouldn't call industrializing, eliminating malaria, and bringing electricity to the entire country to be "terrible". These were great gains and if you don't consider Albania to have been socialist, at least it shows the power of central planning.

Albania was the poorest country in Europe. It got out of WWII with not only just about everything destroyed, but it still faced tribalism, over 90% illiteracy and a life expectancy below 40. When the bicycle came to Albania in the 20's many tribesmen thought it was a weapon. It doesn't take much intellectual strength to say that Albania from the period of 1944-1985 accomplished a lot.
Are you kidding? He faltered through on every international deal to really industrialize his country. He fell through on the Indian deals, the Yugoslavian deals, the Chinese deals, and accomplished far less than a lot of capitalist leaders. I do acknowledge the power of central planning, but Hoxha's Albania was not an example of that.

[Ismail]

Are you kidding? He faltered through on every international deal to really industrialize his country. He fell through on the Indian deals, the Yugoslavian deals, the Chinese deals, and accomplished far less than a lot of capitalist leaders. I do acknowledge the power of central planning, but Hoxha's Albania was not an example of that.I fail to see how something like, say, 90%+ illiteracy in 1945 turning to 30%- illiteracy in 1950 is not a good example of the rapid development central planning can achieve.

Also the Yugoslavians, Soviets, and Chinese did send aid to help industrialize Albania. Eventually however all three were found to be engaging in an exploitative relationship vis-à-vis the Albanians and thus trade ended. Yugoslavia wanted to turn Albania into a Yugoslav Republic, Soviets wanted to make its economy an appendage of the Soviet Union, Chinese gave less aid each year while promising more since they cared less and less about Albania.

The fact is, most of Albania in the 40's was still basically stuck in the 15th century. Within twenty years he brought most of it into the 20th, and within twenty more Albania was a sovereign and relatively modernized country.

[Josef Balin]

I fail to see how something like, say, 90%+ illiteracy in 1945 turning to 30%- illiteracy in 1950 is not a good example of the rapid development central planning can achieve.

Also the Yugoslavians, Soviets, and Chinese did send aid to help industrialize Albania. Eventually however all three were found to be engaging in an exploitative relationship vis-à-vis the Albanians and thus trade ended. Yugoslavia wanted to turn Albania into a Yugoslav Republic, Soviets wanted to make its economy an appendage of the Soviet Union, Chinese gave less aid each year while promising more since they cared less and less about Albania.

The fact is, most of Albania in the 40's was still basically stuck in the 15th century. Within twenty years he brought most of it into the 20th, and within twenty more Albania was a sovereign and relatively modernized country.
I mean engaging in the necessary international relations to get your people what they need, all the failed deals with any other state that approached it for non-ideological trade that it was at least at first open to and never fell out of touch with for ideological reasons. What Hoxha was not a part of was the proletariat of Albana, who did feel the necessity of international trade for things you just don't have.

EDIT: And bullshit on Yugoslavia wanting to annex Albania, that was never proven and party propaganda. Had he formed a regional bloc with Yugoslavia instead of shutting him out in the 40's the two states probably would have had much brighter futures. And "exploitative relationships"? Under Hoxha as late as 1982, most of Albania's economy was focused on the West:
1982: Imports *millions of US$*

Yugoslavia 74
Italy 42
Bulgaria 23
Romania 19
West Germany 17
France 16
Poland 15
Greece 13
Hungary 12
China 4
United States 3
Britain n.a.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/albania/al_appen.html#table4
1982: Exports *millions of US$*

Yugoslavia 74
West Germany 36
Italy 32
Romania 27
Bulgaria 23
Poland 18
United States 17
Greece 12
Hungary 11
France 9
Britain 8
China n.a.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/albania/al_appen.html#table4 (same)

His largest volume commerce partner was Yugoslavia. If he would have maintained relations with Yugoslavia instead of arbitrarily getting rid of them then to resume commerce labor (thus denying yourself years of potential income) can only be explained as incompetence and he (nor anyone in the bureaucracy) felt the enormous impact that had.

I'm talking about what really happened, not what bullshit story some bureaucratic figurehead piped out.

[Ismail]

Might as well respond since we agreed via PM to do so.


I mean engaging in the necessary international relations to get your people what they need, all the failed deals with any other state that approached it for non-ideological trade that it was at least at first open to and never fell out of touch with for ideological reasons. What Hoxha was not a part of was the proletariat of Albana, who did feel the necessity of international trade for things you just don't have.Albania did trade regardless of ideology. There is nothing wrong with simple trade, as Hoxha himself noted: "...We do not aim at building up a closed economy of an autarchic character. By relying on our own efforts, making the fullest possible use of all our reserves and setting up a powerful national economy to ensure enlarged reproduction by itself, we will create for ourselves the conditions for collaborating on the basis of equality with other countries as well as for a more effective mutual support and collaboration with socialist countries." (Answers to Questions About Albania. Tiranë: Naim Frashëri Publishing House, 1969, 169-170.) This obviously excludes exploitative trade, which leads us too...


And bullshit on Yugoslavia wanting to annex Albania, that was never proven and party propaganda.You should probably read A Coming of Age: Albania under Enver Hoxha considering that Yugoslavia wanting to annex (or dominate) Albania certainly wasn't party propaganda. A simple look on Hoxha's Wikipedia page (which is well-cited, mainly from the book itself) could also be sufficient. Needless to say, Tito pulled a Khrushchev and tried to make the Albanian economy operate as an appendage to the Yugoslavian economy, just as the Soviets did with Cuba and the Warsaw Pact.


And "exploitative relationships"? Under Hoxha as late as 1982, most of Albania's economy was focused on the WestTrade by itself is not exploitative. Albania engaged in simple barter trade, unlike Cuba (which developed its economy around Soviet needs) or the Warsaw Pact (ditto, only on a grand scale), or in exploited countries (e.g. virtually all of Africa, once again economies built around the needs of imperialist nations). Whenever something goes wrong in these 3 examples (such as the USSR not existing anymore or the imperialist nation withdrawing trade from the exploited nation) the economies suffer greatly. Considering that you just condemned Hoxha for being isolationist, it wouldn't make much sense if Hoxha went "I'm literally not going to engage in any sort of trade with anyone ever and illogically make my economy collapse." The DPRK engages in trade too, but you'd probably still attack them by claiming that they're not really trading with anyone. (Even though expanded "trade" would require exploiting the DPRK's economy)


His largest volume commerce partner was Yugoslavia. If he would have maintained relations with Yugoslavia instead of arbitrarily getting rid of them then to resume commerce labor (thus denying yourself years of potential income) can only be explained as incompetence and he (nor anyone in the bureaucracy) felt the enormous impact that had.You could argue that colonies should have stayed as such due to being 'ensured' economic and domestic stability using the same line of reasoning.

[GX.]

World's poor overwhelmed by rubbish (photos). (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/jun/05/waste-world-environment-day?lightbox=1)
have you seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrAShtolieg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7rNYzSH-BA

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Environmental destruction is inherently tp capitalism.

[El Rojo]

to what extent is one capable of limiting ones damage within the capitalist system? because every time a plastic bottle is bought, the pollution continues. it is practical good sense to attempt to limit envirnmental damage even before the revolution, surely?

[heylelshalem]

eviromentalism is essential. We cant have a free world if its so polluted that life cant exist on it. And we are rapidly moving towards that reality.

[Antioch]

Bad Ismail. No bringing Albania into unrelated threads.

I'm with most of you guys on this, environmentalism itself is a very socialist concept, it's just the parties that represent environmetalist ideals follow social democratic economic models.

[FreeFocus]

to what extent is one capable of limiting ones damage within the capitalist system? because every time a plastic bottle is bought, the pollution continues. it is practical good sense to attempt to limit envirnmental damage even before the revolution, surely?

Individual action in and of itself is ineffective. However, I don't buy bottled water frequently, maybe once every few months, because a) it's a waste of money, b) the water itself is generally as good as tap water, according to most studies, and c) I don't like the environmental impact of plastic bottles and how most people throw them away and end up polluting the environment and killing animals.