enviroment in communism [Archive]

STI

11th February 2004, 20:15

Originally posted by mia [email protected] 11 2004, 07:27 PM
i thought bout this a lot today...
i suppose in communism, cause there'd be no money as a problem, only the best materials would be used for making products and people wouldn't really save them (for example petroleum, gold, ...).

so what happens when people spend all resources?? :blink:
Well, I would assume that, since there would be no need to make a solid- gold butterknife, we wouldn't make them. The need for petroleum could be eliminated within 25 years, and that's here in capitalism. The development of completely sustainable and renewable would be much quicker in communism, since we wouldn't be spending billions of dollars every year on finding new ways to blow each other up. We could use all that research time to find and develop sustainable, renewable resources.

Retro

11th February 2004, 20:21

I'd have to agree with Socialist_Tiger on this.

Even in capitalism there is no way capitalists will allow resources to run out, they will have another resource waiting around the corner to keep making them money.

However in communism where money isn't required, we can actually make the items that last for a long time. Like batteries that last forever, or lightbulbs, etc. Capitalism is what keeps these items from being introduced to the people.

mia wallace

11th February 2004, 20:26

this things i mentioned were only examples... you're right bout the researches, but there is a possibility that we run out of resorces of sth important? another exsample can be water. in many countres people can't drink water unless it's from a bottle. i know in communism we could make drinking water from sea cause the money wouldn't be a problem, but still.... :unsure:

STI

11th February 2004, 21:07

we could make drinking water from sea cause the money wouldn't be a problem, but still....

Still what? Water is one of the most primary resources and a staple of life, and, if we could distribute that everywhere, why couldn't the same be applid to everything?

mia wallace

11th February 2004, 21:32

guess you're right...
sorry :rolleyes:

M.L

11th February 2004, 21:44

since we wouldn't be spending billions of dollars every year on finding new ways to blow each other upLike that comment :)

And water which is the most primary resource in this world is a merchandise; and why is that?
simple answer: CAPITALISM!!

STI

11th February 2004, 21:53

Originally posted by mia [email protected] 11 2004, 10:32 PM
guess you're right...
sorry :rolleyes:
Absolutely no need to apologize. For all I know, you might present a way of looking at things to me which I see as 'better' than the one I hold now. It's what good comrades do.

redstar2000

13th February 2004, 05:58

The story is told that Lenin once speculated on what would be done with the massive amounts of gold stored in bank vaults around the world.

He suggested that it be used to make toilet seats...gold feels warm to the human buttocks, is easy to keep clean, etc.

It's an idea.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

CorporationsRule

13th February 2004, 08:01

"Even in capitalism there is no way capitalists will allow resources to run out, they will have another resource waiting around the corner to keep making them money.

However in communism where money isn't required, we can actually make the items that last for a long time. Like batteries that last forever, or lightbulbs, etc."

Dude, what planet do you live on?

This thread is insane. It's communism, not La La land.

Communism or no, lots of people are about to start starving. (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=22221&st=0&#entry348624)

Your understanding of environmental issues is crazy. Capitalism didn't destroy the world, industrialization did.

It's not like communism is going to completely transform the physical make up of the world.

We're running out of stuff! (http://gadfly.igc.org/papers/cornuc.htm)

STI

13th February 2004, 20:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 09:01 AM
"Even in capitalism there is no way capitalists will allow resources to run out, they will have another resource waiting around the corner to keep making them money.

However in communism where money isn't required, we can actually make the items that last for a long time. Like batteries that last forever, or lightbulbs, etc."

Dude, what planet do you live on?

This thread is insane. It's communism, not La La land.

Communism or no, lots of people are about to start starving. (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=22221&st=0&#entry348624)

Your understanding of environmental issues is crazy. Capitalism didn't destroy the world, industrialization did.

It's not like communism is going to completely transform the physical make up of the world.

We're running out of stuff! (http://gadfly.igc.org/papers/cornuc.htm)
There's enough food in the world to feed everyone (or at least there's the potential for there to be enough), but we pour god only knows how much food in the ocean and decide not to grow food to our full capacity, as a means of keeping the price of said food high enough. In communism, no such problem would exist, so we could produce food to our full capacity, eliminating world starvation.

e suggested that it be used to make toilet seats...gold feels warm to the human buttocks, is easy to keep clean, etc

How'd he find this out? Lol. Sorry, I just have a mental image of Lenin rubbing a gold nugget all over his ass. :P

Fidelbrand

16th February 2004, 16:51

From my point of view, "sharing" in an egalitarian way does not necessarily link to "wastage" . Plans can be made, and concern for the environment may even be more intense under communism (as compared to capitalism).

toastedmonkey

16th February 2004, 21:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 09:01 AM
Communism or no, lots of people are about to start starving. (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=22221&st=0&#entry348624)

Your understanding of environmental issues is crazy. Capitalism didn't destroy the world, industrialization did.

It's not like communism is going to completely transform the physical make up of the world.
About to start you say? how about the millions already starving around the world? many people have already 'started' to starve and many more will, not all in the third world though.

Industrialization is a part of Capitalism, a process, a transistion, a stage or whatever you want to call it.

No one said it would change the 'make up' of the world, i think the point is, is that its being grocely mis-managed now, there wouldnt be the need for such explotation.
Look at Cuba for example, the cars they have are the sameones they had in '59. If you see a '59 car in the first world, it will be called 'vintage' or 'classic' or 'rare'. And why is this? because having an old car or 'last seasons' car is unfashionable, people get fed up and see a shinyier car in a window somewhere and go buy it - if the majority of the cars from 1959 could still be on the road today, functioning fine, then think of the massive waste of metals since, think of how many millions of cars have been made worldwide since '59 - its alot and alot of wasted resources which could of been used for who knows what!

STI

16th February 2004, 23:56

Actually, one of the major reasons for North Americans always needing new cars is the fact that our vehicles are eroded and worn away much more quickly because of the salt used on roads during the winter. In Cuba, of course, they don't do that, so they avoid such a problem.

toastedmonkey

17th February 2004, 12:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 12:56 AM
Actually, one of the major reasons for North Americans always needing new cars is the fact that our vehicles are eroded and worn away much more quickly because of the salt used on roads during the winter. In Cuba, of course, they don't do that, so they avoid such a problem.
you kinda missed the point i was making, we dont need to create cars and what not at the rate we do, thus saving resources/materials.

i should of just said that in the first place shouldnt i?

mia wallace

17th February 2004, 12:53

i really doubt all the people who buy new cars in USA do it only because they can't use their old ones anymore... :rolleyes:

STI

17th February 2004, 20:28

Originally posted by toastedmonkey+Feb 17 2004, 01:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (toastedmonkey @ Feb 17 2004, 01:23 PM)
[email protected] 17 2004, 12:56 AM
Actually, one of the major reasons for North Americans always needing new cars is the fact that our vehicles are eroded and worn away much more quickly because of the salt used on roads during the winter. In Cuba, of course, they don't do that, so they avoid such a problem.
you kinda missed the point i was making, we dont need to create cars and what not at the rate we do, thus saving resources/materials.

i should of just said that in the first place shouldnt i? [/b]
I see what you're saying now. Sorry, i DID miss the point. Anyway, you're right. We could just use crazy things like *gasp* public transit and carpools, reducing the need for the creation of so many new cars, as the ones we have would last longer.

i really doubt all the people who buy new cars in USA do it only because they can't use their old ones anymore...

Granted, but my point was that comparing the cars they drive in Cuba to North America was comparing apples and oranges, as there are different factors effecting the wearing down of cars in both examples. There aren't many '57 Chevies in North America, because they wear down much more quickly than in Cuba.

mia wallace

17th February 2004, 20:35

Originally posted by socialist_tiger+Feb 17 2004, 10:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (socialist_tiger @ Feb 17 2004, 10:28 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 01:23 PM

[email protected] 17 2004, 12:56 AM
Actually, one of the major reasons for North Americans always needing new cars is the fact that our vehicles are eroded and worn away much more quickly because of the salt used on roads during the winter. In Cuba, of course, they don't do that, so they avoid such a problem.
you kinda missed the point i was making, we dont need to create cars and what not at the rate we do, thus saving resources/materials.

i should of just said that in the first place shouldnt i?
I see what you're saying now. Sorry, i DID miss the point. Anyway, you're right. We could just use crazy things like *gasp* public transit and carpools, reducing the need for the creation of so many new cars, as the ones we have would last longer. [/b]
i think that's a good idea and could be the solution for the problem with making too much cars - public transport. and it would be nice if the material of cars which are not used anymore would be used for sth, not just thrown away

STI

17th February 2004, 21:23

Originally posted by mia wallace+Feb 17 2004, 09:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mia wallace @ Feb 17 2004, 09:35 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 01:23 PM

[email protected] 17 2004, 12:56 AM
Actually, one of the major reasons for North Americans always needing new cars is the fact that our vehicles are eroded and worn away much more quickly because of the salt used on roads during the winter. In Cuba, of course, they don't do that, so they avoid such a problem.
you kinda missed the point i was making, we dont need to create cars and what not at the rate we do, thus saving resources/materials.

i should of just said that in the first place shouldnt i?
I see what you're saying now. Sorry, i DID miss the point. Anyway, you're right. We could just use crazy things like *gasp* public transit and carpools, reducing the need for the creation of so many new cars, as the ones we have would last longer.
i think that's a good idea and could be the solution for the problem with making too much cars - public transport. and it would be nice if the material of cars which are not used anymore would be used for sth, not just thrown away [/b]
I thought that was what scrap yards did. Could be wrong, though.

mia wallace

17th February 2004, 21:32

maybe it is already done, i really don't know.

pedro san pedro

18th February 2004, 08:30

under communism, we wouldnt be anywhere near as wasteful -the example given of military spending being a prime example.

i know that in 2000, 1% of the worlds annual military budget would have been enough to bring renewable energy to the 2 billion of us without it.
i shudder to think how much this budget has now increased.
certinally new technologys are also held back, so that the status quo in terms of power are retained. how much would the world change if we no longer relied upon oil?

capitalism requires consumption.

this is why we have things such as built in redunecy in our products. if companies began making products that lasted forever, they would be out of business pretty quick.

we produce so many unnecessary products in todays world, and we waste so many resoursces for minimal gain -eg: austraila cuts down the worlds largest softwoods, to sell as woodchips for $10 a tonne.

enviromental issues were what orginally drew me to communism -if we dont have a major paradigm shift in our attitudes to the planet very, very quickly, we gonna be pretty fucked.

Fidelbrand

18th February 2004, 13:10

Very well said, Pedro san pedro.

I was thinking about rampant consumerism/wastage when contemplating environmental issues, then I bumped into the concept of communism~

Iepilei

18th February 2004, 15:11

You must also remember that communists, on the whole, have a united motivation for the development of technologies once deemed "too expensive" to the capitalists. When it comes to what is needed in society, I would hope no true expense be spared.

mia wallace

18th February 2004, 16:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 05:11 PM
You must also remember that communists, on the whole, have a united motivation for the development of technologies once deemed "too expensive" to the capitalists. When it comes to what is needed in society, I would hope no true expense be spared.
that's a good point.

under communism, we wouldnt be anywhere near as wasteful -the example given of military spending being a prime example.
it think it would be as you said but you can't be sure. i hope we wouldn't be, but never say never. i think the military isn't a quite good example cause in communism there wouldn't be any states so wars would be meaningless, and automatically the military too.

STI

18th February 2004, 20:39

Originally posted by mia [email protected] 18 2004, 05:00 PM

under communism, we wouldnt be anywhere near as wasteful -the example given of military spending being a prime example.
it think it would be as you said but you can't be sure. i hope we wouldn't be, but never say never. i think the military isn't a quite good example cause in communism there wouldn't be any states so wars would be meaningless, and automatically the military too.
I think that was the point. Without a military, all the resources which are now spent on the military would be free to be used for something else (well, a lot of somethings).

mia wallace

18th February 2004, 21:09

Originally posted by socialist_tiger+Feb 18 2004, 10:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (socialist_tiger @ Feb 18 2004, 10:39 PM)
mia [email protected] 18 2004, 05:00 PM

under communism, we wouldnt be anywhere near as wasteful -the example given of military spending being a prime example.
it think it would be as you said but you can't be sure. i hope we wouldn't be, but never say never. i think the military isn't a quite good example cause in communism there wouldn't be any states so wars would be meaningless, and automatically the military too.
I think that was the point. Without a military, all the resources which are now spent on the military would be free to be used for something else (well, a lot of somethings). [/b]
a lot of something for sure :rolleyes:
but still what if we would be wasteful as much as now or even more??
can you prove we wouldn't?

toastedmonkey

18th February 2004, 21:20

Originally posted by mia [email protected] 18 2004, 10:09 PM
but still what if we would be wasteful as much as now or even more??
can you prove we wouldn't?
its an important part of communism, of course it would have to be a global scale to have no military at all.

STI

19th February 2004, 01:32

Originally posted by mia wallace+Feb 18 2004, 10:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mia wallace @ Feb 18 2004, 10:09 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 10:39 PM

mia [email protected] 18 2004, 05:00 PM

under communism, we wouldnt be anywhere near as wasteful -the example given of military spending being a prime example.
it think it would be as you said but you can't be sure. i hope we wouldn't be, but never say never. i think the military isn't a quite good example cause in communism there wouldn't be any states so wars would be meaningless, and automatically the military too.
I think that was the point. Without a military, all the resources which are now spent on the military would be free to be used for something else (well, a lot of somethings).
a lot of something for sure :rolleyes:
but still what if we would be wasteful as much as now or even more??
can you prove we wouldn't? [/b]
Well, I can't "prove" anything about how a communist society would work, since it is in the future. I can speculate and theorize, though. It wouldn't make sense that we would use as much after capitalism, since capitalism creates needless consumption and needless waste. Without said consumption and waste, we wouldn't consume as much.

mia wallace

19th February 2004, 15:17

Originally posted by socialist_tiger+Feb 19 2004, 03:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (socialist_tiger @ Feb 19 2004, 03:32 AM)
Originally posted by mia [email protected] 18 2004, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 10:39 PM

mia [email protected] 18 2004, 05:00 PM

under communism, we wouldnt be anywhere near as wasteful -the example given of military spending being a prime example.
it think it would be as you said but you can't be sure. i hope we wouldn't be, but never say never. i think the military isn't a quite good example cause in communism there wouldn't be any states so wars would be meaningless, and automatically the military too.
I think that was the point. Without a military, all the resources which are now spent on the military would be free to be used for something else (well, a lot of somethings).
a lot of something for sure :rolleyes:
but still what if we would be wasteful as much as now or even more??
can you prove we wouldn't?
Well, I can't "prove" anything about how a communist society would work, since it is in the future. I can speculate and theorize, though. It wouldn't make sense that we would use as much after capitalism, since capitalism creates needless consumption and needless waste. Without said consumption and waste, we wouldn't consume as much. [/b]
what'd happen with people who couldn't possiblly imagine life without fancy clothes and expensive stuff? they'd surely waste alot on we could say useless things. jewlery for instance. this doesn't really have to do a lot with enviroment but it's the first example i came up with

STI

19th February 2004, 20:13

Originally posted by mia wallace+Feb 19 2004, 04:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mia wallace @ Feb 19 2004, 04:17 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by mia [email protected] 18 2004, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 10:39 PM

mia [email protected] 18 2004, 05:00 PM

under communism, we wouldnt be anywhere near as wasteful -the example given of military spending being a prime example.
it think it would be as you said but you can't be sure. i hope we wouldn't be, but never say never. i think the military isn't a quite good example cause in communism there wouldn't be any states so wars would be meaningless, and automatically the military too.
I think that was the point. Without a military, all the resources which are now spent on the military would be free to be used for something else (well, a lot of somethings).
a lot of something for sure :rolleyes:
but still what if we would be wasteful as much as now or even more??
can you prove we wouldn't?
Well, I can't "prove" anything about how a communist society would work, since it is in the future. I can speculate and theorize, though. It wouldn't make sense that we would use as much after capitalism, since capitalism creates needless consumption and needless waste. Without said consumption and waste, we wouldn't consume as much.
what'd happen with people who couldn't possiblly imagine life without fancy clothes and expensive stuff? they'd surely waste alot on we could say useless things. jewlery for instance. this doesn't really have to do a lot with enviroment but it's the first example i came up with [/b]
Well, most people who go nuts with jewelery (as an example) aren't working class. A post- revolutionary world wouldn't have the bourgeoisie overconsumers to create a problem like that.

... Besides, we're not showing signs of running out of the things necessary to create jewelery as it is. The problem would be reduced after capitalism, because capitalism creates needless waste.