Why Democracy Will Destroy the Environment

[MrTrooper]

i think that we can all agree that there are numerous if not countless faults with capitalism, but i am going to concentrate on but a single one, it's effects on our environment. It is my opinion, and i am more than willing to argue this out:), that a capitalist rule is a short term solution, while communism is the answer to sustainability, especially in an environmental aspect. For example, a capitalist government must please the people, if it intends to be re-elected. that in itself is fine, and is what gives people the impression that there is no dark side to capitalism, but just think about it. if governmental leaders, whether prime ministers or presidents, have only a few years in government, whether it be 3,4 or something else depending on what country you live in, to prove to the people that they are worthy of another term in office, they are hardly going to solve long term problems. they are going to give the people something quick, easy, 'painless' and seemingly problem solving! this leads me to the essence of my problem, the environment. in my opinion, solving the effects of the enhanced global warming effects, is absolutely crucial, more so than anything else on an international scale (that is purely opinionated of course). if governments are out and about, sticking band-aids over immense global problems, what will be solved? one thing: peoples concerns. i live in Australia, a country that along with pretty much all other capitalist countries, has been extremely slow in responding to climate change (thanks a lot Howard). one of the key things they have done is add 3% ethanol to petrol. they would have made it 100% but our local oil drilling suppler managed to convince our gullible society that ethanol destroys engines. (if you would like any proof to the contrary, simply look at brazil, its cars running on nothing but ethanol.) one of the most amusing 'solutions' that they have made (a state project, not national), was an attempt to fix traffic problems, and ultimately release less carbon emissions. The logic was this, rather than encourage people to drive less cars, and improve public transport (a long, difficult job to do yes, but ultimately the solution to an ever growing problem), they should construct a bridge! since that announcement, they have decided that that single bridge was not enough, and are now in the process of building two more. and the people love it. because if the government says climate change is being managed, it simply must be. yet our politicians really know otherwise, they are simply deadlocked into making short term solutions, by our own so called solution to our social problem, capitalism. LOL i apologies for this very confusing thread, as you may attain, I'm probably not the best at explaining things.:confused: in summary, i suppose what i am trying to state is that without government/s that are really intent in sustainability, not only will climate change become unsolved, but all other international problems will overtake our blindfolded community and lead to irreversible consequences. and that is the essence that separates capitalism from communism, short term compared to sustainability.

[comrade stalin guevara]

kia ora comrade from across the ditch. yes i agree no argument from me.
comrade join the oceania group:hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle::ha mmersickle::hammersickle:

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

i think that we can all agree that there are numerous if not countless faults with democracy,

Better then not having democracy. (What we have not is bourgeois democracy)


but i am going to concentrate on but a single one, it's effects on our environment. It is my opinion, and i am more than willing to argue this out:),

Okey thats good the trains fucked so i carnt go to work thereforth im feeling augmentative



that a democratic rule is a short term solution, while communism is the answer to sustainability, especially in an environmental aspect.

I think your missing out that communism is democratic.

It seems your a communist but at the same time believe cold war propoganda trying to slander every communist.


For example, a democratic government must please the people, if it intends to be re-elected. that in itself is fine, and is what gives people the impression that there is no dark side to democracy, but just think about it. if governmental leaders, whether prime ministers or presidents, have only a few years in government, whether it be 3,4 or something else depending on what country you live in, to prove to the people that they are worthy of another term in office, they are hardly going to solve long term problems. they are going to give the people something quick, easy, 'painless' and seemingly problem solving!

I think this is true of modern day capt list country's and other issues at aswell. (Such as all those damn stupid imigration laws made by labour to get votes from the daily mail crowd)

(Btw the last paragraph was good point please though stop giving the impression communism is undemocratic).


this leads me to the essence of my problem, the environment. in my opinion, solving the effects of the enhanced global warming effects, is absolutely crucial, more so than anything else on an international scale (that is purely opinionated of course). if governments are out and about, sticking band-aids over immense global problems, what will be solved? one thing: peoples concerns. i live in Australia, a country that along with pretty much all other democratic countries, has been extremely slow in responding to climate change (thanks a lot Howard). one of the key things they have done is add 3% ethanol to petrol. they would have made it 100% but our local oil drilling suppler managed to convince our gullible society that ethanol destroys engines. (if you would like any proof to the contrary, simply look at brazil, its cars running on nothing but ethanol.) one of the most amusing 'solutions' that they have made (a state project, not national), was an attempt to fix traffic problems, and ultimately release less carbon emissions. The logic was this, rather than encourage people to drive less cars, and improve public transport (a long, difficult job to do yes, but ultimately the solution to an ever growing problem), they should construct a bridge! since that announcement, they have decided that that single bridge was not enough, and are now in the process of building two more. and the people love it. because if the government says climate change is being managed, it simply must be. yet our politicians really know otherwise, they are simply deadlocked into making short term solutions, by our own so called solution to our social problem, democracy.

Yeah the well good plan we have is revolution.

Since people will rule them selfs ( though communes) people will have to educate themselfs about global warming and how to stop it. Also I suspect in time technolgical advances will make things greener

( i am not a green anarchist)
( i am not a green anarchist)
( i am not a green anarchist)
( i am not a green anarchist)
( i am not a green anarchist)

(had to be said anarcho communism wins)




LOL i apologies for this very confusing thread, as you may attain, I'm probably not the best at explaining things:confused:. in
[quote=MrTrooper;1192536] summary, i suppose what i am trying to state is that without government/s that are really intent in sustainability, not only will climate change become unsolved, but all other international problems will overtake our blindfolded community and lead to irreversible consequences. and that is the essence that separates democracy from communism, short term compared to sustainability.


Communism is democracy
Capitalism is fucking shite

the best thing you can do is educate the community on these matters

oh and the whole revolution thing

[core_1]

you mean bourgeoisie democracy right?
Because I'm getting fascist vibes from your choice of words lol

[MrTrooper]

apologies all, i was half asleep and quite sick at the time of writing that, please replace the word democracy with capitalism, a huge mistake yes but i can hardly think at the moment lol.
again, sorry!:crying:

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

you mean bourgeoisie democracy right?
Because I'm getting fascist vibes from your choice of words lol

http://uepc014.ee.qub.ac.uk/rtr/special_features/mr_angry/mr_angry.jpg

Yes the above is Mr angry the only communist Mr man.

Mr angry is fucking annoyed that you used the word fascism to describe authoritarianism.

Mr angry does not approve of either but believes that using the word fascism to describe authoritarianism makes you sound like Mr dizzy

http://www.millie-moo.com/images/Mr%20Dizzy%20cropped.jpg

And lets face it mr dizzy is a trendy lefty scumbag

[KrazyRabidSheep]

I'm sorry; I quit reading the first post because no paragraphs make me sad.

[Sendo]

of course, the most basic read of LAtin American populism would shows that communes are more effective at resource management than bourgeois "national parks", the world's most sustainable economy is in Cuba, and peoples are widely opposed to cash crop agricutlre, reckless use of biofuels, and auctioning off of natural resources to first world corporations.

Don't take the failed democracy of the US and state govts and their failed enviro records and then make elitist remarks that humans are too stupid to manage their planet and must be told what to do by an enlightened tyrant.

Look at North American indians. They did a damn good job of being sustainable and egalitarian. See William Cronon's Changes in the Land for info on New England Indians specifically.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm sorry; I quit reading the first post because no paragraphs make me sad.

I too am sorry and sad. Would anyone care, especially MrTrooper, to paraphrase the original post with a bit more clarity?

- August