Socialism is bad for the environment

It's really quite simple. Socialism is a big pyramid scheme. You always need a bigger base to pay for the people that came ahead of you. Since Socialism always needs an expanding base. That means an ever expanding population. That population increase will need more land, more resources, more corporatiins, basically everything a good socialist marches against.

That would explain socialism need for ever expanding economic growth, oh wait no that capitalism.

Why would socialism need an expanding base any more than capitalism does?

You are describing capitalism.

That's not socialism, but the opposite.

a reply to: thinline

I wouldn't doubt it, coming from those who hold the reigns of control over the rest.
Socialism:
Webster defines “socialism ” as:

…any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

The idea under socialism is that everyone pays taxes and the government, in an equitable way, provides its citizens with the things that they need. While it appeals to many people, socialism is wrong.

As famed French economist Frederic Bastiat put it:

The [socialist] state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.
thoughtcatalog.com...

I thought i'd toss this link in as well, regarding the so called over population of earth.

overpopulationisamyth.com...

a reply to: thinline

Capitalism hasn't been doing to well for the environment either. Isn't that right BP, Exxon, and the Amazon rain forest?

One wonders how the children of Flint MI would feel about this thesis.

Also, although I know I'm wasting typing, no form of socialism is based on "living off of the work of other people."

The same cannot be said of capitalism.

a reply to: Swills

At least with capitalism you can boycott.

They wouldn't be making all that dough if people didn't buy it.

a reply to: rockintitz

Ha ha ha ha! As if anyone got boycotted because they ruined the environment! Amirite BP? Now, don't get me wrong, sure there are people out there who want these companies boycotted but the majority of people don't give a crap and will continue to be consumers.

Capitalism is bad for the environment, not socialism.

a reply to: thinline
How about Democratic Socialism? I never see that addressed.

You are correct in a way.
Capitalism in the United States and Europe has environmental standards for business to follow.
Yes, I know that doesn't always work as it should.

Socialist countries have many state owned manufactures that don't have to worry as much about that sort of thing.
The ussr had a terrible environmental record.

You're painting this picture with broad strokes.

a reply to: Swills

Humanity is bad for the environment.

No form of society will change that.

I'm still for voting with my wallet, as opposed to letting government control my wallet.

I wonder if BP was state owned.. How would the government been held accountable?

a reply to: rockintitz

Okay, then change your title to Humanity bad for the environment and leave everything else out of it. Then suggest we all kill ourselves?

a reply to: thinline


so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
synonyms: leftism, welfarism;

=

Multi level marketing

I'm an extreme critic of socialism.

But you need to actually put some effort into a post like this.

How do the policies, specifically, harm the environment?

Can a policy change be made without violating the central tenets of Socialism? If not, why not?

I want to see correlating studies on environmental damage from current and former socialist states.

You can't just make claims that would require some kind of evidence without actually presenting such evidence. You put in an OP what should have gone in a YouTube comment.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: rockintitz

Okay, then change your title to Humanity bad for the environment and leave everything else out of it. Then suggest we all kill ourselves?

Not my thread bro.

That's a little extreme lol. I wouldn't suggest that.. Why does there have to be an immediate, perfect solution?

There is no such thing.

a reply to: rockintitz

Oh right, it isn't your thread. Carry on.

Without property rights, there is no way to utilize the system in order to defend property from pollution. Russia, China, Cuba, Somalia, Venezuala, North Korea – not exactly countries known for their environmentalism.

originally posted by: TheTory
Without property rights, there is no way to utilize the system in order to defend property from pollution. Russia, China, Cuba, Somalia, Venezuala, North Korea – not exactly countries known for their environmentalism.

Aside from the other wide-ranging fallacies implicit in your comment ... what variety of "socialism" denies property rights, please? Socialism does not equal totalitarianism, per se. Thank you kindly.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Marxist socialism.

a reply to: projectvxn

Excellent post.

As I'm somewhat doubtful the OP will go much beyond their current efforts ... what brand or theory of "socialism" would you say is automatically bad for the environment.

It seems to me that an actual socialist government (hint, there aren't any because it's a ideal theory of organization) would manage environmental impacts in the same way that all resources under the government's purvue were administered, in the best interests of all the People.

Just ... you know, in an average way of speaking on the topic.