Environmental Policies of the USSR

[Cyberwave]

Particularly under Lenin and Stalin. They way I see it, none of the leaders of the Soviet Union necessarily truly understood the importance of the environment, but more because "environmentalism" and other such scientific notions hadn't really been put forward on a global level, so few really did. But what were some of the pro-environmental policies of those such as Lenin and Stalin? What were some of their blunders? How did these compare to future leaders of the Soviet Union, and were they worse or better? If worse or better, was it solely out of newly emerging data on the issue and historical context, or something else? Any detailed sources would be highly appreciated.

[Ismail]

There was the "Plan to Transform Nature" which was promptly abandoned after Stalin died.

This goes into it a bit: http://ml-review.ca/aml/AllianceIssues/ALLIANCE16_ECOLOGY.htm

The German invasion of the USSR had wreaked an utter devastation. There was an urgent need post Second World War to extend agriculture, after the Second World War, into wherever possible.
"The sown area of the vast RSFR in 1945 was 25 million Ha less than in 1940. In the USSR the sown area decreased by 36.6 million Ha between 1940 and 1945. In Kazakhstan the drop was 770,000 ha."
McCauley, p.30.
The Virgin Lands of the Steppe were a possibility. But the practical problems of the land concerned had to be tackled:
"Agriculture in the steppe area of the European part of the Soviet Union, especially in the areas to the East and South East of the river Don, is affected by dry winds (sukhovei) coming from the desert and semi-desert areas of Central Asia. Consequently drought is one of the great problems of these regions. Besides drought, low level fertility and wind erosion have to be combatted. The solution of these problems was to be found in a complex system of afforestation measures for the preservation of moisture in the soil, and increase in the number of ponds by bring and the construction of reservoirs, measures for the introduction of rotation in grain and fodder crops (Travople) and other ameliorative measures.."
McCauley, Martin. "Khrushchev and the Development of Soviet Agriculture." London 1976. p. 31.
The Plan called on the Travopole system to be made compulsory. The degree:
"Relied.. on the planting of protective tree belts in areas suffering from water or wind erosion.. in the Volga Basin, and the Caspian Sea area, Voronezh to Rostov-on-Don, the Northern Donets to the Don, Krasnodar krai,the Crimea and the Southern Ukraine. .. and in Asiatic Russia, Vishneveya Hills -Orenburg-Urals-Caspian Sea.. the implementation met with mixed fortunes. The survivors proved valuable as wind breaks and contribute to the anti-erosion struggle. The plan, put into action in 1949, lost impetus after Stalin's death.. Khrushchev turned a deaf ear to those who feared the spread of erosion to the large expanses of newly cultivated soil in the East.. it took Khrushchev a decade to realise that Kazakhstan was a dry farming area."
McCauley p.156-160.
In addition there were massive plans for irrigation that were canaceled after the death of Stalin:
"Would provide.. 6 million ha.. and 22 million ha of extra grazing land, mainly in the semi- deserts and deserts north and east of the Caspian.. none of the irrigation projects.. received much official backing...The opposition to the scheme was demonstrated after the death of Stalin."
McCauley p.32.
Unfortunately not all the wind breaks survived. They had been planted under Lysenko's direction that they be planted in cluster. Lysenko had ("dialectically") argued that under Mutual Aid, the saplings themselves would allow the best to survive. This was of course a mistaken theory, it has to be acknowledged. But despite Lysenko's naiviete, the scheme planted some 5.7 million hectares of protective trees and:
"There has been considerable debate about the effectiveness of these tree belts which now present a familiar landscape to a traveller in the countryside."
Cited Durgin Jr, F.A. p. 126. in Stuart R.C."The Soviet Rural Economy"; 1984.New Jersey.
Nonetheless the scheme made a great deal of sense and was in fact really contributing to relief of the agriculture. This became clear after Stalins' death. By 1953 :
"Socialist agriculture had been able to extend the sown area by about 40 million ha."
McCauley , p. 32.But yeah, I really doubt Lenin and Stalin cared much about the environment outside of simple things like conversation (which Lenin encouraged.) They were concerned with building industry first and foremost for reasons that should be obvious. Some bourgeois ideologists actually condemn Marxists over this, like how Kołakowski "proved" that Marxism was outdated because, among other things, Marx didn't discuss the "danger" of global warming and environmental decay. Of course this presupposes that Kołakowski's other points, namely that class struggle is dated and that historical materialism is wrong, are true to begin with.

[Black Sheep]

Was there even such a thing as "environmental policies" in the first half of the 20th century? :confused:

[Rusty Shackleford]

Was there even such a thing as "environmental policies" in the first half of the 20th century? :confused:
psh. no.

i mean, the nazis wanted to drain the fucking Mediterranean.

as for the soviet union, they werent too environmentally minded i would imagine. i mean, a major inland sea ended up drying up to support cotton production in Kazakhstan i think.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

psh. no.

i mean, the nazis wanted to drain the fucking Mediterranean.

as for the soviet union, they werent too environmentally minded i would imagine. i mean, a major inland sea ended up drying up to support cotton production in Kazakhstan i think.

The Aral Sea, its in Uzbekistan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aral_Sea_Continues_to_Shrink,_August_2009.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Aral_Sea_1989-2008.jpg

I wanted to post a picture but all the photos on wiki are too big so theres the link. It's gotten worse since the fall of the USSR since the little ex-soviet dictatorships in the area had too many problems to bother worrying about changing their economy. Its tragic though, the salinity of the sea went up the roof and has been killing off the fisheries that used to support the area, while traditional harbor towns are now in the middle of a desert.

The USSR had absolutely horrible environmental policy. It is one of the worst legacies of their system. The PRC is currently making the same mistakes of development regardless of ecological sustainability. Perhaps this is a legacy of Stalinist industrialization, which in some respects seems to have the same kind of empty materialistic understanding of development similar to free market Capitalism. The main focus is on improving productive powers without focusing on the effects that such an improvement incurs on surrounding communities or the future state of our public ecosystem.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I wouldnt pin this on the spectre of "stalinism." "stalinism" has nothing to do with this. Marxism-Leninism doesnt either, and neither does capitalism or socialism. Who could predict the global climatological consequences of industrialization in any society that has barely begun to become heavily industrialized.

The whole world is now VERY aware of such things and i doubt any marxist would call environmental preservation and consciousness a bad thing.

[Olentzero]

A very instructive article can be found here: Chris Williams' Marxism and the Environment (http://www.isreview.org/issues/72/feat-marxenviro.shtml), an excerpt from his 2010 book Ecology and Socialism (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/Ecology-and-Socialism).

A few salient points, from the section "Sociological thought since Marx":


The Bolshevik scientist Vladimir Vernadsky was the first to coin the term 'biosphere' (in his 1926 book (http://www.amazon.com/Biosphere-Complete-Annotated-Vladimir-Vernadsky/dp/038798268X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308296025&sr=1-1) bearing that title), and warned of the dangers of the misuse of nuclear power - in 1922
The Soviet government under Lenin set aside vast tracts of land, called zapovedniki, in which all human access except for purposes of scientific research was banned, and which were to serve as the baseline standards for measuring how industrialized society affected unprotected areas
The Soviet government set aside protected forestry areas as part of a plan for reforestation and sustained logging yield
In 1924, the All-Russian Society for Conservation was founded, the purpose of which was to
help build a mass social base for conservation and to incorporate conservation and the study of nature into school curricula.

Those are some of the main highlights of that section and are the most directly relevant to the question, but I recommend reading the whole article as it has much on Marx' and Engels' ecological writing and a few arguments on how socialists should relate to ecological and environmental questions. Ultimately, however, I recommend getting the book. It scared the hell out of me and gave me hope at the same time.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I wouldnt pin this on the spectre of "stalinism." "stalinism" has nothing to do with this. Marxism-Leninism doesnt either, and neither does capitalism or socialism. Who could predict the global climatological consequences of industrialization in any society that has barely begun to become heavily industrialized.

The whole world is now VERY aware of such things and i doubt any marxist would call environmental preservation and consciousness a bad thing.

The environmental movement had its origins well before the founding of the USSR. In fact, the old Imperialist dog of war Teddy Roosevelt was famous for pushing an eco-friendly policy among other things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt


Theodore Roosevelt introduced the phrase "Square Deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Deal)" to describe his progressive views in a speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Theodore_Roosevelt#Square_D eal) delivered after leaving the office of the Presidency in August 1910. In his broad outline, he stressed equality of opportunity for all citizens and emphasized the importance of fair government regulations of corporate 'special interests'.
Roosevelt was one of the first Presidents to make conservation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_%28ethic%29) a national issue. In a speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Theodore_Roosevelt#Conserva tionist) that Roosevelt gave at Osawatomie, Kansas, on August 31, 1910, he outlined his views on conservation of the lands of the United States. He favored the use of America's natural resources, but not the misuse of them through wasteful consumption.[78] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt#cite_note-TR:_Conservation-77) One of his most lasting legacies was his significant role in the creation of 150 National Forests, five national parks, and 18 national monuments, among other works of conservation. In total, Roosevelt was instrumental in the conservation of approximately 230 million acres (930,000 km2) of American soil among various parks and other federal projects.[79] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt#cite_note-TRAssn-78)


I wasn't talking about global warming and other climatological issues which as you point out obviously weren't understood at the time. But the preservation of natural spaces and ecosystems does have to do with the model of development too. There are also other issues such as the dumping of harmful chemicals into the environment- I think everyone recognizes the fact that Stalin pushed rapid industrialization of the USSR. This rapid industrialization required both a huge exploitation of resources and spilled other pollutants (poisonous, not climatological, in nature, and people understood the harmful effects of radiation, particulates, and other toxins for a long time, even if they didn't understand the claims of global warming)

This wasn't the personal fault of Stalin as a singular person per se, but the bureaucracy as a whole. You see that mindset in their over-exploitation of water around the Aral Sea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea


The disappearance of the lake was no surprise to the Soviets; they expected it to happen long before. As early as in 1964, Aleksandr Asarin at the Hydroproject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroproject) Institute pointed out that the lake was doomed, explaining "It was part of the five-year plans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Year_Plans_for_the_National_Economy_of_the_Soviet_ Union), approved by the council of ministers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_the_Soviet_Union) and the Politburo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo). Nobody on a lower level would dare to say a word contradicting those plans, even if it was the fate of the Aral Sea."[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea#cite_note-winse-11)
The reaction to the predictions varied. Some Soviet experts apparently considered the Aral to be "nature's error", and a Soviet engineer said in 1968 that "it is obvious to everyone that the evaporation of the Aral Sea is inevitable."[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea#cite_note-12) On the other hand, starting in the 1960s, a large scale project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_river_reversal) was proposed to redirect part of the flow of the rivers of the Ob (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ob_River) basin to Central Asia over a gigantic canal system. Refilling of the Aral Sea was considered as one of the project's main goals. However, due to its staggering costs and the negative public opinion in Russia proper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSFSR), the federal authorities abandoned the project by 1986.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea#cite_note-13)
The issue was one of efficiency. They wanted, much as a certain type of Capitalist does, to create the most efficient of all possible productive forces. Developing an industrial society is the main thing on the agenda-for the Capitalist, both then and today, it is to increase the surplus value he gains from the exploitation of a resource, and for the Soviet bureaucrats, it was to have the USSR "catch up" with the Capitalist countries who had developed largely by utterly destroying their environment. Neither the Capitalist nor the bureaucrat were concerned with other issues such as the survival of large seas or natural valleys because less valuable goods were produced from it (ie, fishermen in the Aral Sea were less valued by Soviet bureaucrats than the need for cotton clothing, but the Soviet leaders were also unwilling to invest in diverting water from less arid regions because that too would have cost far more resources, negatively impacting efficiency too)

Anyways, you see a similar model of development today in China. I'm not arguing that it is unique to Stalinism, more the trait of any ideology which seeks to develop quickly regardless of the costs of that development. The 3 gorges dam is an example of such a plan in China, which created a huge supply of cheap electricity but caused severe environmental damage. Today in many neoliberal Capitalist countries in the 3rd world, or 3rd world countries that have been brought into the neoliberal system, you see similar policies of building dams, mines and other (which provide cheap electricity and flood control but are absolutely devastating to the environment). In other words, I'm blaming "Stalinism" and the bureaucracy only insofar as they adopt a certain myopic view of materialism and how and why society should develop.