Communism and the environment

[Comrade Akai]

I have long held that communism would bring about better care for the environment, minimizing pollution and increasing awareness about caring for our world.

What do you guys think?

[Coggeh]

I have long held that communism would bring about better care for the environment, minimizing pollution and increasing awareness about caring for our world.

What do you guys think?
By the democratic planning of society by workers we are better able to plan ahead. The capitalist class don't care about 50 years from now unless its going to hurt profits. They look to creating the most amount of money in the shortest space of time. With socialism and then communism we can plan for a sustainable economy that is that is based on peoples needs and the need for action on the environment regardless of its 'profitability'.


Also , question to other users : How will socialism deal with trying to industrialize 3rd world countries without hurting the environment .

[New Tet]

Here's an old article in The People:


The People (http://www.slp.org/tp2.htm)
May 27, 1995
Vol. 105 No. 4

SOCIALISM: TRUE EMBODIMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT

By B.B.

It may not be the first thing on its agenda, but somewhere high at the top of the list of the first congress of the socialist industrial union government of North America will be placed sweeping measures to reverse centuries of plunder and destruction of the earth's resources and the attendant environmental degradation. Millions of workers who remained unemployed, underemployed or engaged in totally useless nonproductive occupations will suddenly find themselves absorbed in the tasks of rebuilding their world, one shattered by the abuses of class rule and open-ended profiteering. Their ardent efforts, freed from any restrictions imposed by private-ownership interests and operating only for the good of humankind and the world, will be in sharp contrast to the feeble and timid actions of the "environmentalists" of the capitalist system who are perennially preoccupied with garnering political influence among politicians and trying to raise the monetary funds to carry on their work.

Current environmentalists, limited in their world view and understanding of the capitalist system, imbued with notions of the "evil men" theory of history, are prone to divorce their specific environmental cause from the whole socio-economic fabric. These environmental warriors of capitalist society endlessly flounder, winning, at best, only a delaying action against the disintegrating effects of capitalism on the natural world.

However, there is one important legacy they are leaving behind for the future. It is data, mountains and mountains of exposes, reports and documentation, that amount to indictments of capitalism as the culprit for the destruction of the environment. University libraries are bulging, research establishments are filled, publishers are glutted and periodicals are saturated with data: data about endangered creatures large and small, from sea lions to snail darters, wolves and coyotes to Bengal tigers, pandas, eagles, condors, spotted owls, whooping cranes, salmon and sea horses, along with all the vegetation of their native habitats. Hardly anything seems to have escaped the scrutiny of those scientists and researchers who weigh in with pounds, kilos and tons of reports and findings that Mother Nature is in deep trouble.

The capitalist system finds all of this tolerable as long as no explicit condemnations of its operations are forthcoming. Indeed, reports and data accumulation are welcome and even encouraged by various foundations, and one can make a comfortable living because of the earth's dying. It's as though uncovering an environmental problem is equal to doing something
about it; a lot cheaper, too!

Two recent examples of such documentation, blaming individuals without indicting the system, appeared recently. One, an article in The New York Times of April 7, entitled "El Dorado, Lost Again?" by Leah Martins and Patrick Tierney; the other, "The Puzzle of Declining Amphibian Populations," by Andrew R. Blaustein and David B. Wake, in the April edition of Scientific American.

The former informs us that Venezuela and Brazil are selling off vast areas of rain forest to gold-prospecting companies in the Guiana Highlands separating the Amazon and Orinoco watersheds. Gold deposits estimated at $90 billion, "perhaps 10 percent of the planet's resources," are there. European, Japanese and South African gold capitalists are destroying "one of the planet's richest rain forests" and the habitat of the last unassimilated tribal peoples, the Pemon Indians.

Yellow-Jack Resources, a Canadian outfit, has evicted native peoples from their hunting and fishing domains while the lecherous Robert Friedland, owner of the notorious Summitville gold mine in Colorado, has descended upon the Guiana Highlands (with $50 million he obtained from the Vancouver Stock Exchange) for a repeat performance of the polluted mess he left behind in Colorado, where the clean-up costs were estimated by the EPA at $100 million. Incredibly, this villain acquired a vice presidency in the Minas Guarich strip-mining company partially owned by, of all people, explorer-naturalist Charles Brewer-Carias, a renowned research associate of the University of California and the New York Botanical Gardens!

Brewer-Carias, while posturing as an environmentalist and savior of the Nanomami Indians, saw nothing contradictory in operating open-pit mines on over 12,000 acres in the environmentally protected headwaters of the Cuyumi River! Not to be outdone by Friedland, he employed unsalaried Maguiritare Indians for mining while "he destroys not only nature but also the men who work for him," according to Gergio Milano, an anthropologist and retired police official. The "innovative" Mr. Brewer also ferried University of California anthropologists to the last uncontacted cluster of aboriginal villages in the Amazon without quarantine precautions on a gold-extracting junket, according to three Venezuelan Air Force colonels.

The report goes on to urge the Brazilian and Venezuelan governments to prevent strip-mining and encourage environmentally safer measures. Fat chance! Capitalists always take the most "cost-effective" route to extract minerals and wealth from the earth. The conditions of capitalist competition force them to do so--a realization too distant for the authors of the Times report to grasp.

In the other article, from Scientific American, the authors report that the declining populations of frogs, toads and salamanders worldwide to be partially due to their high exposures to ultraviolet radiation as a result of ozone depletion in the atmosphere. These research scientists documented "massive die-off of fertilized eggs" in Cascade Mountain frogs in Oregon, and in the western toads. Their experiments on fertilized eggs hatched in controlled laboratory conditions using the same lake water that they breed in produced healthy specimens. They proved that extensive environmental destruction, acid rain and snow, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides and industrial chemicals--in other words, capitalism's infernal brew--were all contributing to dramatic declines in amphibian populations. None, they emphasized, have been more damaging than "habitat degradation and destruction [which] clearly remain the most powerful causes of amphibian disappearance around the world."

These scientists have drawn innocuous conclusions, without the essential inference that environmental degradation is inherent in capitalist development. Such an inference would, of course, have led to only one conclusion: that meaningful action to repair our world can only be taken when the competitive pressures of capitalism, indeed the capitalist system itself, is abolished and socialism established.

Upon the basis of the evidence accumulated by today's environmentalists, a socialist industrial union government will take swift, positive and massive efforts to restore the environment. The first step toward doing so, of course, will be to change the basic purpose of social production, from production for profit to production for use--inherently conservationist in
its orientation.

We can expect the workers of every industry to evaluate the repercussions of the productive processes they are engaged in. Biologists, botanists and scientists throughout society will be part of this reassessment, in which the measure of production will be humanity and all living things, and the future generations of all living things.

In this sense, the possibility for a true environmental movement lies within the program of the Socialist Labor Party, for only that program can turn the accumulated mass of environmental documentation into effective action to restore the world.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Eliminating the profit-oriented Price System (AKA Capitalism) and instituting scientific management of our environment will go a long way to improving matters, as detailed in this article (http://www.technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=8&page=1):


Environment

No other issue is as important today, or as misunderstood, as our ecology. Anyone who has studied our environment to almost any degree knows very well that we humans are an integral and dependent part of the complex web of life that covers our planet. Even experts in the field must admit that there is still so much that they don't know. What we do know for certain is that the way we are using technology at this time is severely damaging to our environment. Air and water pollution, ozone depletion, acid rain, deforestation, and global warming are but a few of the issues that honestly threaten our very existence on Earth, and yet all the politicians and big corporations can give us are a sugar-coated promises for the future. Why don't they take the measures necessary to stop and even reverse the damage we have done? Is it that they don't know how? Is it that they don't care? No, it is simply a matter of priorities, and when your priorities are towards supporting our current economy, without which we might not have anything at all (in their view), it becomes necessary to 'break a few eggs' so to speak. They cannot see outside the boundaries that politics and money have set out for them, and they are left powerless, no matter how benign or evil they may in truth be.
However, Technocrats have seen beyond these barriers, using science. They have calculated all the factors necessary to operate our entire society with a high industrial output, and virtually no pollution of any kind. It can be done, but only when money and its power are taken out of the picture. For example, did you know that automobiles make up over 95% of all the prime mover engines in North America? What this means is that they are also responsible for a corresponding amount of the pollution. Yet from a scientific viewpoint it is entirely feasible to design a continent-wide transportation system, involving all forms of transport (air, water, and land), to provide as much actual transportation as exists today (even more if desired), without the dependence on automobiles. And whatever transport is used, autos included, could easily be rendered non-harmful to the environment, with no sacrifice in comfort, reliability, or convenience. In fact, the only difference people would find in a Technate's Transportation Sequence, is how much of it they can partake of. One could easily have breakfast in Toronto, meet with friends in L.A. for lunch, then visit their folks in Florida for dinner, without it taking up all their income.
As well, since methods of farming and agriculture would be enhanced to at least the best methods in use today, waste and inefficiency there would disappear too. The net affect of this is the need for only as much land as is contained in the state of Illinois to feed us all. The rest could be carefully restored to its natural state, something we have not seen since the days of Columbus!

[PC-Basher]

science science and more science.

there are some commie bros out there that are anti-environmentalists, lol so old school. Australian communist party Marxist Leninists. But they do have a point that environmentalism hampers growth and jobs, perhaps invest more on education and sciences? sustainability is needed, our earth is being raped like hell, water shortages some nations are no joke, and with pollution, damn.

[mannetje]

we really gonna need science in this time and in the upcoming future. to develop the green energy-recources better. in holland we've gotta a lot of windmills and solarpanels. there are some people who complain that it looks ugly in the landscape. but i really don't care if it looks ugly, i accept that the most of us are energy-junkies,(me too) but it is really time to get cleaner with energy. who didn't noticed the effects of globalwarming. the weather is really starting to act weird these days. in holland where i'm from use to be a lot of snow in the winter for about 20 years ago. now there is almost never snow in the winter anymore.

[Comrade Kaile]

why dont we all just instigate nuclear energy...

i never understood people and their 'anti-nuclear this, anti-nuclear that'
asides from chernobyl and mumbai can you really name a super mega ultra (sorry i need emphasis here) badass nuclear reactor malfunction?

essentially, nuclear power, while more of a transitory power source, would be the best option for civilization to build itself upon, at least until we can get better tech.

this could also be the answer to your question coggeh, with the right guidance you can use nuclear energy to build up the industry of 3rd world nations, and since carbon emissions from nuclear power are basically non-existent, screw you global warming

i suppose the only real problem is faulty construction and/or technical training, and... its technically a fossil fuel... but still, as a temporary power source itd work, dont you think?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i suppose the only real problem is faulty construction and/or technical training, and... its technically a fossil fuel... but still, as a temporary power source itd work, dont you think?

If by "temporary" you mean "lasting billions of years (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html)", then yeah.

[Comrade Kaile]

well, yeah, but as i got into the shower this morning in my half dead stupor i remembered nuclear waste, so id say either find a way to fix that problem, or get a better power source, like bbq or sweet chilli....

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

well, yeah, but as i got into the shower this morning in my half dead stupor i remembered nuclear waste, so id say either find a way to fix that problem, or get a better power source, like bbq or sweet chilli....

Waste can be reprocessed back into usable fuel, and anything left over can be rendered more or less chemically inert via vitrification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Vitrification).

[Comrade Kaile]

yes, but eventually the half life of wahtever material we're using would run out

so maybe it lasts for ages, we still need to replace it
and i dont want to end up like current society, squabbling over the remaining supplies of fuel in an attempt to stave of the wolves, i want reliable renewable energy after we stop using nuke power

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

yes, but eventually the half life of wahtever material we're using would run out

At which point it would be merely chemical waste.


so maybe it lasts for ages, we still need to replace it
and i dont want to end up like current society, squabbling over the remaining supplies of fuel in an attempt to stave of the wolves, i want reliable renewable energy after we stop using nuke power

I would have thought that billions of years would be more than long enough.

[Comrade Kaile]

your probably right... humans will likely be extinct by then

EDIT: i cant believe i forgot this.... we cant run our cars and jets and whatnot on nuclear power, asides from voiding my insurance, id rather not be driving around we a nuclear reactor in my car

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

your probably right... humans will likely be extinct by then

EDIT: i cant believe i forgot this.... we cant run our cars and jets and whatnot on nuclear power, asides from voiding my insurance, id rather not be driving around we a nuclear reactor in my car

Cars can be replaced with canals and electric railways, and the use of jets can be scaled back massively in favour of alternative methods of transportation, such as airships, nuclear-powered cargo ships and high-speed railways. If the worst comes to the worst we can always have aircraft powered by rocket engines rather than jet engines.

[NecroCommie]

your probably right... humans will likely be extinct by then

EDIT: i cant believe i forgot this.... we cant run our cars and jets and whatnot on nuclear power, asides from voiding my insurance, id rather not be driving around we a nuclear reactor in my car
The nuclear power plants produce electricity which will be used on electric cars. The technology of electric cars has been intentionally held back by many companies, but with communism that will change.

Personally I put my faith in a healthy combination of bio-energy and solar energy backed up by few nuclear plants. On certain areas solar energy has possibilities of covering all needs of private households, in the future that is when we can apply the technology studied by the Germans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power Also, bio-waste can be easily turned into heat or electricity. Some teachers at my university estimate that in the not too distant future 30% of finnish electricity will be produced by burning waste material of forest industries. Where as I think that the estimate is highly optimistic, I am confident enough on this industry to specialize in it.

[Muzk]

If this nuclear power was that good, why are there so many people protesting against it? But anyways, car traffic should be cut down by doubling the public transportation!

And the useless waste of power, like creating aluminium, shouldn't be done!

Why do you need a car when there are trains? Don't think of only the pollution the cars create these days, but how much building a car causes... There seems to always be a problem, and nuclear reactors...
if noone makes a mistake nothing will happen, right? But there are always factors noone can see, especcially when there are humans controlling the reactors.. There is always a chance - and if it happened, the aftermath would be terrible! Google 'nuclear burn' and check for pictures to see what I mean.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If this nuclear power was that good, why are there so many people protesting against it?

Because people are mislead by the likes of Greenpeace.


And the useless waste of power, like creating aluminium, shouldn't be done!

Why is producing aluminium wasteful of power?


Why do you need a car when there are trains? Don't think of only the pollution the cars create these days, but how much building a car causes... There seems to always be a problem, and nuclear reactors...
if noone makes a mistake nothing will happen, right? But there are always factors noone can see, especcially when there are humans controlling the reactors.. There is always a chance - and if it happened, the aftermath would be terrible! Google 'nuclear burn' and check for pictures to see what I mean.

Modern designs do not rely on operator infallibility - in fact they take such things into account by having multiple failsafe mechanisms based on different principles. Read and be enlightened (http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/saf/reactorsafety.html).

[Muzk]

Because people are mislead by the likes of Greenpeace.

No argument there. I'm not a greeny but I won't blindly trust any communist because we agree on some things either :lol:

Why is producing aluminium wasteful of power?
Yho know, aluminium is one of the most abundant metals on earth, therefore it needs a whole lot of power to filter out pure Al²


The reaction at the cathode (negative electrode) is Al3+ + 3 e− → Al Here the aluminium ion is being reduced (electrons are added). The aluminium metal then sinks to the bottom and is tapped off, usually cast into large blocks called aluminium billets for further processing.
At the anode (positive electrode), oxygen is formed:
2 O2− → O2 + 4 e− This carbon anode is then oxidized by the oxygen, releasing carbon dioxide.
O2 + C → CO2

Short: You need C (Coal) to produce aluminium. The oxygenium the aluminium was first bound to goes to the C because of high temperature, which also needs a whole lot of energy. Learned about this at school some time ago but I don't have the exact numbers, but they were huge


I love off topic discussion!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You don't need to use coal specifically, just carbon. They only use coal because it's cheap.

[JohannGE]

I can see that in a potential future socialist utopia nuclear power and the undeniable dangers and problems it entails could well be mastered.

However I think the current insanity, instability and conflict, (to say nothing of the cranking up of that insanity, instability and conflict that will inevitably arise from the struggle to achieve that socialist utopia, put a totally different perspective on things.

As often happens around here, we sometimes seem to talk as if that struggle were over or that it is likely to be in the near future. Even with the most optimistic outlook that is not true and I think we should bear that in mind when discussing such far reaching, crucial and potentially dangerous solutions as nuclear power.
-

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I can see that in a potential future socialist utopia nuclear power and the undeniable dangers and problems it entails could well be mastered.

The problem is that people are going to be needing power long before that.


However I think the current insanity, instability and conflict, (to say nothing of the cranking up of that insanity, instability and conflict that will inevitably arise from the struggle to achieve that socialist utopia, put a totally different perspective on things.

The world is not going to Hell in a handbasket. I don't know why this apocalyptic mindset appears to be so common among revolutionary leftists but it is utterly without basis as well as belying a superstitious and messianistic attitude.

Let's leave the job of preaching "the end is nigh!" to the god-botherers, eh?


As often happens around here, we sometimes seem to talk as if that struggle were over or that it is likely to be in the near future. Even with the most optimistic outlook that is not true and I think we should bear that in mind when discussing such far reaching, crucial and potentially dangerous solutions as nuclear power.
-

Even under capitalist management nuclear power is a better option than many of the others.

[bcbm]

The world is not going to Hell in a handbasket.

No, its been taking a more leisurely route, but that doesn't mean we aren't facing some pretty serious problems that need to be addressed soon.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, its been taking a more leisurely route, but that doesn't mean we aren't facing some pretty serious problems that need to be addressed soon.

Let's accept for the sake of argument that what you say is true. Is the necessary abolishment of capitalism likely to happen "soon"? If not, then how exactly are the problems you mention going to get addressed?

[bcbm]

Let's accept for the sake of argument that what you say is true. Is the necessary abolishment of capitalism likely to happen "soon"? If not, then how exactly are the problems you mention going to get addressed?

Eh, they probably won't.

[JohannGE]

The problem is that people are going to be needing power long before that.

True. Hence my "however" suggesting that during the potentially long and traumatic transition, any confidence and assurance that a socialist world can safely manage mass adoption of nuclear power is irrelevant.


The world is not going to Hell in a handbasket. I don't know why this apocalyptic mindset appears to be so common among revolutionary leftists but it is utterly without basis as well as belying a superstitious and messianistic attitude...

...Let's leave the job of preaching "the end is nigh!" to the god-botherers, eh?

I am struggling to relate your disparaging insinuations to what I actually said, which was:-

"However I think the current insanity, instability and conflict, (to say nothing of the cranking up of that insanity, instability and conflict that will inevitably arise from the struggle to achieve that socialist utopia, put a totally different perspective on things."

Do you seriously suggest that this comment warrants the accusation that I portray an "apocalyptic mindset ", a "superstitious and messianistic attitude" and preach "the end is nigh!" in the style of the "god-botherers"?

I reject such blatant and crass attempts at demonisation and regret that they undermine and detract from your often excellent and valued input on the science.


Even under capitalist management nuclear power is a better option than many of the others.

Perhaps true again but again reinforceing the point I was making that caution is required when considering the mass adoption of nuclear power under the control of capitalism.
-

[Muzk]

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoXion http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1549444#post1549444)
Even under capitalist management nuclear power is a better option than many of the others.

Perhaps true again true but again reinforceing the point I was making that caution is required when considering the mass adoption of nuclear power under the control of capitalism.
-

It is a better option because it pays off much better. Get lots of money. And what do you do with the waste? The easiest way is to place it somewhere. Maximum profit! Hell yeah. And the 'green' providers will be crushed by our 'low' prices.
:cursing::cursing:

[ezza_lv]

I'm very sure that communism fill bring also great respect on nature, as personally I'm a pro-communist what makes me think about every thing in life, so also about the nature... still communism is the true life of human like it should be and we are par of nature and it's obvious that every communist should protect his nature! :)

[JohannGE]

It is a better option because it pays off much better. Get lots of money. And what do you do with the waste? The easiest way is to place it somewhere. Maximum profit! Hell yeah. And the 'green' providers will be crushed by our 'low' prices.
:cursing::cursing:

Perhaps.

But again, it in no way negates concerns about the overiding dangers of capitalist control of nuclear power.
-

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am struggling to relate your disparaging insinuations to what I actually said, which was:-

"However I think the current insanity, instability and conflict, (to say nothing of the cranking up of that insanity, instability and conflict that will inevitably arise from the struggle to achieve that socialist utopia, put a totally different perspective on things."

Do you seriously suggest that this comment warrants the accusation that I portray an "apocalyptic mindset ", a "superstitious and messianistic attitude" and preach "the end is nigh!" in the style of the "god-botherers"?

I reject such blatant and crass attempts at demonisation and regret that they undermine and detract from your often excellent and valued input on the science.

I apologise if I've misread your intentions, but your own vagueness should be to blame. What concerns? What risks? What dangers? Be specific. It is a common tactic of uninformed antis, as well as those who want us to fear the future for ideological reasons, to be sketchy on the details. They seemingly have no interest in actually solving problems, only an interest in propagating fear, their ideology, or both.

[JohannGE]

I apologise if I've misread your intentions, but your own vagueness should be to blame. What concerns? What risks? What dangers? Be specific. It is a common tactic of uninformed antis, as well as those who want us to fear the future for ideological reasons, to be sketchy on the details. They seemingly have no interest in actually solving problems, only an interest in propagating fear, their ideology, or both.

I do not accept responsibility for your "misreading" of my intentions, nor the suggestion that I was being vague. I may not have specified the dangers inherent in a massive increase in nuclear power production when those increases were to be managed and exploited by capitalism.

That is because I thought they would be readily apparent to anyone intelligent and informed enough to have at least a basic grasp of nuclear power production and the inherent motives and failings of capitalism.

The tactics of uninformed antis you describe do not imo justify the tactic of pro's, however well informed, and however ideologically sound, propagating complacency.

"What concerns? What risks? What dangers? Be specific."

You are asking me to be specific about a posible coming conflict of proportions unknown in the world before, between unknown factions, of unknown duration, and unknown consequences. Any such list would be very easy to argue against ad-infinitum due to it's hypothetical and speculative nature.

Suffice to say that a landscape peppered with what are in effect gigantic dirty bombs, the massive increase in the transportation and storage of radio active materials, all managed and secured under the short sighted, self serving interests of capital, while such a conflict rages, is a dangerous risk that should imo concern us greatly. I also believe that the same dangers would exist, if to a lesser extent, even in a capitalist system reletivly secure in it's dominance as ours currently is.
-