Socialism is bad for the environment

Corruption is killing the environment and any form of government that suffers from massive corruption will be devastating to the environment. Greed and corruption has no care or remorse just a hunger to aquire at all costs.
Socialism and capitalism can work hand in hand and if the corrupt leadership was removed we would have effective policies in place to lessen our impact to our planet. It's not as if we aren't capable of doing better we are just led by greedy parasites who realize the majority of people are easily brainwashed.

a reply to: ugmold

How about Democratic Socialism? I never see that addressed.

Yeah. Because ignorance. They don't know what it is. (And refuse to learn).......

Some of the most polluted places on earth are socialist or formerly socialist states, and this is a direct result of central planning and lack of property rights, and people want to discuss constitutional monarchies, the countries without any reference to socialism in their constitutions, as if they were socialist.

The socialist experiment has failed long ago, and we have a new generation who wants to do it all over again.

a reply to: TheTory

Some of the most polluted places on earth are socialist or formerly socialist states, and this is a direct result of central planning and lack of property rights

Incorrect.

To wit:
What is Democratic Socialism?

Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few.

To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well—everywhere but in the United States.

Because of this, many false ideas about socialism have developed in the US. With this pamphlet, we hope to answer some of your questions about socialism.

Click on the link for more info.
Or don't.
Up to you.

And here you go:
The Nordic Model is what Bernie is talking about:

The Nordic model (also called Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy)[2][3] refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden).

This includes a combination of free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level.[4][5]

Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits.

These include support for:

a "universalist" welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility;

a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government;[6]

and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade.[7]

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

What you or the democratic socialists of the US believe is vastly different then the empirical results of socialism. Learn from history, or don't. Up to you.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The Nordic countries are constitutional monarchies, or parliamentary republics, not socialist states.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Buzzy:

You'll find here that folks want to bandy about the word "SOCIALISM" with no direct references to actual governments, during actual time-periods, because they are completely used to the idea that to merely mention "SOCIALISM" is sufficient to denote and stigmatize everything they don't like ... politically, economically, etc.

They quote from a hastily-written 168-year old political pamphlet (Marx's Communist Manifesto) that they churned up on Google, or find bastardized on right-wingnut media, and try to say that "this is socialism."

China is the second largest (and successful) economy in the world, and is widely recognized as a "socialist state." Yet, it is not now, and has never really been purely "socialist" in nature, because that is frankly impossible. Socialism is, as generically and broadly as possible, a socio-political ideology that values all of the people, or members of a society, over a privileged few, and while that is a laudable goal, in practice, we all know that some people start the game with more resources than others or are simply more driven to be successful than others, or will do better work than others, and will create a better life for themselves than others. Acknowledging these facts does not stigmatize, however, the less successful ... or it shouldn't.

Those of us who favor a more socialist(almost any variety)/humanitarian approach, however, will still argue for societal support for all ... economically and politically ... but not only am I preaching to the choir, I digress ... I know you know this full well, Buzzy.

Someone linked the Environmental Performance Index (Here's the 2016 report for reference) earlier in the thread and tried to argue that because states like China, Russia, Vietnam and (LOL) Somalia are ranked lower on the list than others, this proves that "socialism is bad for the environment."

While that is a ridiculous assertion on its face (because there are a multitude of factors involved in the way the study is structured)as you point out, the Nordic countries, which are roundly condemned in right-winger circles as "socialist" when convenient to arguments, occupy the highest spots on that list ... yet, that is the typical level of dialogue available regarding the matter at hand.

All successful (and not so successful) national economies of the last two centuries have been mixed economies because economies at the national level are not simplistic little tests for economic theories ... as so many try so desperately to argue.

As usual, we find that so many people argue from ignorance and with platitudes, which have so much success in winger echo-chambers, and don't bother to address the facts of the matter.

a reply to: Gryphon66


The Nordic countries are social democracies, not instances of "democratic socialism" as was insinuated by others. There is a difference, but I doubt anyone would care to differentiate, knowing the intellectual nonsense being passed around as facts here.

Plus I never said "socialism was bad for the environment". I explicitly said socialist countries are not known for their environmentalism. Another misrepresentation of my arguments, and a straw man made to seem like a refutation. Just like socialist states, the pollution is growing in this thread.

a reply to: TheTory

What you or the democratic socialists of the US believe is vastly different then the empirical results of socialism. Learn from history, or don't. Up to you.

Like I said.

Ignorance.

Embrace it. Or not. Up to you.
Whatever blows your wig back.

a reply to: TheTory

The Nordic countries are social democracies, not instances of "democratic socialism" as was insinuated by others.

Uh...excuse me....semantics and pedantics much?

WHY on earth would you try to mislead people??????? WHY?

Bernie has been saying for months now - look to Scandinavia.....that is what we should be aspiring to.

It makes no difference if you don't like the way the words are arranged. The concept is THE CONCEPT.

Democrat Social countries are *ALL* heavily dependent on debt.

They *ALL* have homeless, poverty and unemployment as well as high national debts.

It's all getting moldy and unsanitary.

a reply to: xuenchen

So??? EVERY country is in debt. That's the global way.

But - xuen, what do you propose?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Sanders is a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist, not social democrat. There is a difference. There has never been democratic socialist country that I know of. Social democracy works within the economic framework of capitalism, while the other works within the economic framework of socialism. They are vastly different.

Which one is Sanders? Which one are you?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: xuenchen

So??? EVERY country is in debt. That's the global way.

But - xuen, what do you propose?

Sorry, not in the proposal business.

I gauge and measure the failures.

a reply to: TheTory

Sanders is a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist, not social democrat. There is a difference. There has never been democratic socialist country that I know of. Social democracy works within the economic framework of capitalism, while the other works within the economic framework of socialism. They are vastly different.

You are still hung up on semantics.

Which one is Sanders? Which one are you?

I am going to vote for Bernie Sanders.

What difference does it make if it's called "a socialist democracy" or "democratic socialism"? Yes, some pedants think there is a difference. I've read all the info.......

What he stands for is what matters.




OBTW, not impressed so far with your pedantic rhetoric. Address the issue - please.

Social democracy works within the economic framework of capitalism,

YES!



WHICH IS WHAT SANDERS IS TALKING ABOUT.
What do you not understand about this?

It works within the framework of capitalism - it is a mixed economy -
So - what about it?????

Yes, what Sanders is talking about is whatever-the-hell you prefer to call it...as long as you realize it is based on and works within "the framework of capitalism", we have nothing to argue about.......

It is the system of personal property rights, free enterprise, and liberty to pursue one's own dreams - but also includes making sure that your fellow citizens aren't starving, homeless, and naked; have roads to drive upon; can go to school and learn to read and write; can get medical care when they need it including an ambulance or fire crew; but - well, if you think all of that is crap ......

I really don't know what else to tell you.



Fine. Let's call it "social democracy" - you happy? We'll call it whatever you like. How about we call it "sharing"? Would that suit you? How about we call it "caring"? How about we call it "compassion" and "empathy"???? Those suit your tender sensibilities?

Now....if you'd like to continue this subject, address the issue.

a reply to: TheTory

I'm going to drop one last little note to you more or less in the interest of community service.

You've posted very little that is not "your opinion of other posters" and that is frowned upon here at ATS.

You make statements of opinion with no factual basis, which is of course fine, but you are being dishonest when you present these as meaningful to anyone but yourself.

Your arrogance is astounding: the subject of this discussion is "socialism is bad for the environment."

If you don't like the thread, or the posters in it, why continue?

I'll clue you in: no one here is interested in your disdain.

Also, personal request, please refrain from addressing me with anything but substantiated facts in the future.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: xuenchen

So??? EVERY country is in debt. That's the global way.

But - xuen, what do you propose?

Sorry, not in the proposal business.

I gauge and measure the failures.

We have a phrase for that in the South ... "bitchin' and moanin"

Typically considered to be a worthless enterprise.

I'm amazed that you owned up to it though. Kudos for that.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

hat difference does it make if it's called "a socialist democracy" or "democratic socialism"? Yes, some pedants think there is a difference. I've read all the info.......

The difference is they are the opposite in function. One utilizes the capitalist economy, while the other utilizes the socialist economy. The are dangerously different, that to side with one is to be against the other. I think it's fair to differentiate the two.

The Nordic Model does not utilize a socialist economy. Take Norway. They trade in the markets. They import and export. Most of their wealth and standard of living is a result of their oil, petroleum and fish exports, and they are rich in those resources, rich in those jobs. But without those they have very little; and God forbid they run out.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I accept your opinion. If you'd like, maybe we can start again on more congenial grounds.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

Whatever blows your wig back.

LOL. There is a type of argumentation that depends, solely, on rephrasing the arguments of others, and/or repeating the same vague, generalized observation repeatedly.

Until folks are ready to define the kind of socialism they're complaining about, with direct references to the actual implementation of same, and to locate that geographically and historically ... well, we're mostly just passing flatulence ... I guess that kind of hot air can "blow a wig back" ... properly applied ...