Well, look at China to see how well pseudo socialism works. You can see what a mess they are making of their environment. And don't tell me they
don't have a top down centralized socialist/communist system. They do.
Since the wealth is not distributed anything like equally it clearly can't be very socialist and since the people have practically no say in who
represents them it can not be called communist or socialist and since the workers in China do not in fact gain directly from the common ownership of
industry it must have taken much propaganda to fool western people into associating China with it... Europe is closer to socialism/communism than
China is, by virtue of people actually having the power to select representatives that could at least in theory change things, and Europe is more
capitalistic than it is socialist ( since the workers do not own significant interests in the companies they work for) so one really wonders if we
should even bother with labels that in practice almost never fully apply. Perhaps i should stop too....
Gandi also implemented a system where every man was supposed to be an agrarian self-supporting person in a socialist state. You can also see
how well that turned out environmentally for India.
Oh the theory is sound but only insofar as you can prevent foreign countries from subsiding their grain production with billions of dollars and thus
being able to dump it into your market place at such low prices that your own self sufficient small farmers can not sell the few extra tons they
produce for the cash that they require to pay taxes and the few other modest bills they may have. The same thing happened to the American family farm
( there are hundreds of thousands of abandoned family farm homes, or more, all over the US) as it become less and less profitable to sell excess food
into a market completely controlled by agri business that gets the subsidy which essentially allows them to buy grain from you very cheaply, in a
consolidated marketplace, and sell it in another country for the same or less than they charged you!
The same is to some extent true in Europe as well and the combined food exporting power of these two forces have absolutely devastated small family
farms all over the world as they once did in their own countries. This drives hundreds of millions of people into the cities all over the world and
creates new wage slaves to fuel the hungry engines of industry with he lower wages also having the result that more and more jobs in the developed
world can be off shored by it's disloyal/treasonous corporations.
Russia also made an all-fired mess of itself during its communist years, too.
The devastation you speak of is happens practically everywhere where the owners bought the land but do not expect to stay there to raise their kids or
grand kids; at least Gandhi and ilk could see that the best way to protect it would be to make its caretakers dependent on it for their own survival.
Corporations are not individuals and without massive oversight, and perhaps with it while the profit motive is preeminent, they can not and will not
act sustainable. As for Russia the Nazi's ( read western imperialist) were bent on more than environmental destruction so what would you have done
given Stalin's power when confronted with the post war devastation and enemies that were still practically at your gates? How can the Russian central
government and people be expected to be excellent caretakers of their environment, while under threat of nuclear annihilation, while the west which
had the overwhelming balance of power for decades into the cold war pretty much continued to lay waste to either their own environments or switched to
draining redeveloping ( in the case of India which the British sucked so dry that it went from developed to underdeveloped; still recovering) or third
world countries for ever more and more resources?
In fact the same can be said for most developing and poor countries today which are being strip mined and environmentally devastated by foreign
corporations or foreign business practices being forced on them at aircraft carrier point. How can they be expected to risk their very economies and
lives to save the environment by acting against international corporations that will be protected with either international financial action or, if
that fails, actual military intervention?
It's a myth that socialist/communist systems are better for the environment.
The real myth is that we have had such systems of government in modern history. The closest approximation would be the native tribes of northern
America.... They certainly had the population numbers and there could have been hundreds of millions of them when 'we' got there if they had not
been artificially restricting their numbers by pretty severe birth control practices. The result was that they had just about as many people as could
live off the land with practically zero impact and that was why Europeans found North American in basically pristine condition. The little i have read
about the history of the nations there is pretty fascinating and it should be noted that they once had such population numbers that they had hunted
the larger game and predators into extinction and then eventually changed their ways once it become widely understood that the practice was
unsustainable. Well that is how i remember it but i am sure that's not half the story or perhaps the wrong half.
Now, I'm not claiming that capitalist societies are pure either, but we aren't swimming in the smog of China or the open sewer rivers of
edit on 29-10-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)
At the end of the 19th century the USA was in good part to a third world slum which Europeans scorned as underdeveloped and uncivilized and they were
not entirely wrong either. The programs that cleared away the smog and the then worse instances of pollution and environmental devastation were
brought about by popular resistance to the corporate capitalistic practices of the robber Barron era which eventually resulted in the election of
people like such as William McKinley&Theodore Roosevelt and others after them that basically , and with much popular support and activism against the
excesses of capitalism, eventually resulted in programs such as the new deal and many of the other slightly less business friendly regulations you
complained about elsewhere.
Many Americans believes that things have been going well for the American economy for a long time but the fact of the matter is that America have
only had a "middle class" for three quarters of a century and this group have only had 'money' for two or three generations since the New
deal/Gi-bill. If anyone ever wondered why Americans can seem brash&bombastic i do suggest that this is but a symptom of the 'new money' syndrome
that you get with all people who are new to excess capitol; the newer they are the worse it gets which well explains the excesses of new minted
celebrity's everywhere in the world.