Communism and Environmentalism - they're not neccecarily mut

[lokigreeny]

In russia, after the rev, there was a huge industrialisation push, which ended up making the commies worse (environmentally) than the cappies. the succesive dictators, with their fucking ive year plans, didn't give a damn about the world around them, which is a ruinous waste. it's the only problem i have with conventional communism - oh well, that along with millitant ditatorships and brain-washing.

[Obsolete Truth]

This is foolish (no offence).

What occured in the USSR was prue 'Stalinism', or state/national socialism. Stalin cared not for the environment, unless it would somehow bring him power. Anyhow, wouldn't industrialising so far constitute a capitalistic element, in that communism does ont allow such things

e.g. "Too many used things, results in too many useless people" - Karl Marx

[Palmares]

I must agree that a judgement of the USSR cannot constitute a judgement of communism (just like 'Animal Farm', but that is a satire).

Theoretically, communism and environmentalism are tantamount. It is all about moderation, so you could say the moderation of communism can result in environmentalism, causality. If you read communist dosctrine (e.g. The Communist Manifesto, various 'true' communism definitions on this site, etc) you will discover that what you have said is not valid, at best, misleading.

Read this from the manifesto:

"... abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes; a heavy progressive/graduated income tax; abolition of all rights of inheritance; confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels; centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly; centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State; extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state - the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan; equal liability of all to labour, establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture; combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries - gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equalable distribution of the population over the country; free education for all children in public schools, abolition of children's factory labour in its present form, combination of education with industrial production; and various others (such as the belief in revolution, a classless society, equality, etc)"

These are the fundamentals of communism. One more thing, that was slightly edited, not straight from the manifesto, from something I was writing.

[B] THE LEFT MUST UNITE

[lokigreeny]

1. stalin was not the first nor the last leader of the USSR.
2. the USSR was created as a communist state, even if reality idn't live up to reality (when does it, though?).
3. communism does call for large scale industrialisation and agriculture, and one has to be very careful about that, no matter what ideology is behind it.
4. that's a bloody long sentence, chenthar.
5. im not saying that communism and environmentalism are mutually exclusive, but i think it may take compromises to work sustainability into the communist doctrine.

[Valkyrie]

The beauty of Industrialization:

http://www.picturehistory.com/find/c/141/s...art/0/mcms.html (http://www.picturehistory.com/find/c/141/start/0/mcms.html)

Industrialization is probably the single-most factor in human exploitation, and yes, the destruction of the environment--- you can't ever say to much about that.

Automation the offspring of Industrialization is probably the single-most factor that is creating an population of useless, unproductive, and unemployable human beings.

As Kirkpatrick Sale says: " Technologies are never neutral, and some are hurtful"

Lessons from the Luddites:

http://www.io.com/~wazmo/luddite.html

Environmental Impacts of Industries:
http://www.wri.org/wr-98-99/impacts.htm



(Edited by Paris at 6:05 am on June 24, 2003)

[Palmares]

Quote: from lokigreeny on 1:09 pm on June 24, 2003
1. stalin was not the first nor the last leader of the USSR.
2. the USSR was created as a communist state, even if reality idn't live up to reality (when does it, though?).
3. communism does call for large scale industrialisation and agriculture, and one has to be very careful about that, no matter what ideology is behind it.
4. that's a bloody long sentence, chenthar.
5. im not saying that communism and environmentalism are mutually exclusive, but i think it may take compromises to work sustainability into the communist doctrine.


1. That is not the point, the USSR remained under the same doctrine (Stalinism) throughout the 20th century, untill democracy was introduced.
2. Not entirely true, as it was supposed to be modelled on socialism (what does USSR mean?). But of course this did not eventuate. Communism, seems too ideal personally, socialism is the go.
3. Did you read what I posted?
4. Sentence? You mean post? Copy and post kinda thing though.
5. It does depend on doctrine and circumstance, sorry, but I have no time to fully answer.

[MJM]

Castro talks about environmental issues. How the world must be protected from the exploitation embodied in capitalist society.
Saving forests, stopping global worming, pollution etc. are all issues that the workers are concerned about, thats all that matters really. Because when workers rule, their concerns will be addressed.

The USSR isn't relavant any more, it's gone. Who gives a shit about Stalin, personally I think Trotsky would've done the same thing. State Capitalism is what it was.

[Palmares]

Quote: from MJM on 5:51 pm on June 24, 2003
State Capitalism is what it was.

I disagree. I believe the 'Stalinist' doctrine is the politically correct National Socialism, hence 'socialism in one'. Some call it state socialism, even though the difference is minimal, nationalism is more accurate than the state as such.

So pretty much an oxymoron...