Socialism is bad for the environment

a reply to: TheTory

Bernie is talking about using the capitalist model to make sure that everyone is taken care of and has what they need.


OMG!!!!

OKAY, have it your way - it's "socialist democracy" - WTFever!!!!!

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I'll keep calling you a socialist if that's what you want, because apparently it is. I accept your label.

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Gryphon66

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

How gracious!

Please demonstrate that "Marxist socialism" (as you claimed) has in fact been faithfully implemented anywhere in the world in the last century and a half (or so) since Marx published his theoretical framework. Then, perhaps you can demonstrate where/when/how that implementation has done away completely with property rights, which in your initial claim, provide the only basis for caring for the environment.

I'm not asking for a "term paper" ... I'm just asking that you actually address specific examples with factual references rather than depending solely on platitudes and generalizations.

We'll see.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I would agree with you that no pure socialism, whether Marxist, Leninist, or Maoist, has been implemented, but that's not to say that people haven't tried. Like I said, socialism is a failed experiment. We might have to limit our scope to states that have attempted or now attempt socialism.

Edit: In that regard, we can look at governments that claim or have claimed to be socialist, or on the way to a socialist society.

Is this fair?

a reply to: TheTory

The constant repetition of "socialism is a failed experiment" implies that a true socialism has actually been attempted.

As you now are acknowledging, there have been no true or "pure" attempts at implementing socialism at the national scale.

Therefore I find this statement ... unfounded. You can only state that "socialism" (in a generic idealistic sense) has failed when it has actually been attempted, and you admit that hasn't happened.

So, the jury as such is still out.

My argument, made tangentially in respect to your previous comments, is that there are really no "pure" socialisms that Marxism (which I would have to agree is the most common standard reference point for what socialism is generally considered to be ... which is fallacious) is a horribly dated philosophical framework addressing inequities in the early periods of European industrialization.

To me, socialism makes the most sense as a focus on the human factors in an economy. A socialist government (that truly represents the interests of the people at large) would have no difficulty establishing industrial practices that are productive and profitable while still not poisoning the environment.

OP, such as it was, is a mere slur at the most commonly misappropriated ideas about socialism, which are really, critiques of the modern social safety net or welfare state.

As I said, capitalist and socialist concerns can be melded into a successful economy. Either on their own are pure theory.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I say it is a failed experiment because of the sheer body count, the totalitarianism, and in the last analysis, its effects on the environment. I think I approach it from different perspective. Oddly enough, I may be more of a Marxist than you are. I say that as a good thing. Marx was a strict materialist, and he might appreciate it if we viewed it from a historical materialist perspective. He had a brilliant and prophetic insight into what communism actually is, and it could be applied equally to socialism, capitalism or really any ideology :

“Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.”

German Idealism

Since reality isn’t an idea, and in order to speak socialism instead of Socialism, we have to speak about the “real movement”, its attempts, its revolutions, which have turned out to be disastrous. Socialist governments only got better after adopting capitalist principles. It’s simply not worth it. With its collapse in the 20th century, we saw the end of that experiment. It turns out it that socialism didn’t work. Maybe the capitalist experiment too will collapse, and I think there is a strong argument for that, but it has yet to occur. That experiment is still ongoing.

I completely agree with you in regards to social progress and rights and egalitarianism. I just think socialism (not the idea, but the striving for it) has a demonstrably failed record of attempting to do so.

I also think you're right about the the nordic models and social democracy. Though fairly new, it has proven to work well up until now.

a reply to: TheTory

I do understand that you consider "socialism" to be a failed concept. Yet, as you have repeatedly allowed for the fact that no actual SOCIALISM (Marxist or otherwise) has ever really been attempted, your position seems completely self contradictory from my perspective; obviously, your mileage will vary.

Those killed in the name of revolution are not the victims of socialism ... but of the typical violence associated with regime change.

No theory or construction of socialism (of which I am aware) advocates genocide or totalitarianism etc.; so to my mind, it's as inaccurate to say that the socialist "flavor" of Soviet Bolsheviks is responsible for the deaths of 11 million (or 45 million) Russians as it is to claim that the Christianity claimed by the German Nazis was responsible for the deaths of 8 million or so Germans and Central Europeans.

When you start talking about the "real movement" as you put it ... you're no longer talking about socialism per se... you're talking about political violence and conquest. Every revolution is "disastrous" to some degree ... that's the nature of revolution, again, not socialism. You seem to claim that the fall of the Soviet Union in 92 signaled the end of socialism? I can't see that; many "socialist experiments" remain in 2016.

You yourself were arguing earlier that China is a socialist state ... and they have the second largest economy in the world ... hardly a "failure" ... and as you have read Marx, you will remember that SOCIALISM in his schema is a transitory phase in which there is mixed communism and capitalism.

As far as the "capitalist experiment" ... first of of all I would ask for your example of a truly capitalist modern economy. I would argue that the most pure "capitalist" states died at the beginning of the 20th century after the financial collapse between 1919 - 29. Almost every government adopted a mixed economy at that point ... so that bears more conversation, perhaps.

Soviet Communism had the concentrated forces of the strongest economies (at the time) in the world directed at and devoted to its utter failure. I would argue, in a different context, that even Soviet "Socialism" was never really given a fair chance (I would argue, as many do that the structure of the USSR was more at "state capitalism" and that, indeed, was more of a factor in the overall failure of the system that any socialism might be ... again, for another day and another topic.)

I would argue that one of the more thoughtful early "socialist" thinkers was America's own Thomas Paine, although strictly speaking, I would say he was imagining a welfare state and/or social safety net rather than pure socialism ... but I would also argue (again in a different context) that the American Founders in their construction of the Constitution were more bent toward actual socialism (in the sense of governmental control of the national economy) than many would be comfortable in recognizing. (Again, a different topic for a different thread).

As to personal commentary ... I'm not Marxist at all. He was a dreamer ... not unlike the mythological Jesus. I try to be practical.

I'm glad we have reversed our personal animosity to some extent. I'd much rather disagree intelligently.

a reply to: Gryphon66



That explains it pretty well.
Like the ACA which is not affordable unless you were on the exempted list and then you aren't required to get it, like unions and politicians and some specially exempt people that were friends of the president.

That is a form of Maoist, Marxist, Stalinist socialism. When they are not allowed to be voted on by the people of a free society, then the society isn't a free one. This is just one example, and it is how things are done right now in China's communist party. Party members and favored folks are usually exempted from things they force everyone else to do. We have seen calls to force people to do things or have them jailed or killed already seen in the news, and this is exactly what socialism leads to.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Gryphon66

That explains it pretty well.
Like the ACA which is not affordable unless you were on the exempted list and then you aren't required to get it, like unions and politicians and some specially exempt people that were friends of the president.

That is a form of Maoist, Marxist, Stalinist socialism. When they are not allowed to be voted on by the people of a free society, then the society isn't a free one. This is just one example.

You're merely spewing political rhetoric ... nothing you've claimed here is a) accurate or b) has anything to do with the topic. The basis of the ACA (individual mandate) was a Republican idea ... and it has nothing to do with any sort of socialism.

That you imply that Maoism is equivalent to Marxism is equivalent to Stalinism belies your utter ignorance of the actual facts of the matter. I'm sure you think Obama is Atheist/Muslim/Kenyan/Fascist/Communist as well, right? Words don't mean anything to political hacks like yourself.

May I politely request that you direct your off-topic, irrational, dishonest BS at someone else? I feel constrained out of courtesy to respond when spoken to but we would be wasting our time to continue this.

No, just no.

Socialism is not inherently bad for the environment in and of itself. Socialism is a system in which everyone basically owns everything collectively. We all own to the land, the soil, the water, and the resources. If that were the case, why would people sabotage each other and ultimately themselves? Only makes sense if people are outright self destructive. That wouldn't be a popular narrative in a socialist country at all in reality.

originally posted by: RumPirate
No, just no.

Socialism is not inherently bad for the environment in and of itself. Socialism is a system in which everyone basically owns everything collectively. We all own to the land, the soil, the water, and the resources. If that were the case, why would people sabotage each other and ultimately themselves? Only makes sense if people are outright self destructive. That wouldn't be a popular narrative in a socialist country at all in reality.

Thanks for a logical approach to the actual topic and the meaning of "socialism."

originally posted by: thinline
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.

Maybe it's time to create another forum that is similar in nature to the hoax bin but for threads such as this one, maybe call it the 'obviously inaccurate' bin, or something along those lines.

Threads like this don't happen often but I have seen several in the past where people are starting threads based on a flawed understanding of how things work or generally just having their facts completely wrong.

It can be frustrating, especially when it ends up on the main board.

a reply to: thinline

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.

Before you start a thread you should probably think it through first. As some of the first replies made clear, Capitalism can also be considered as a Ponzi scheme.

As far as the environment goes, it is unchecked industrialization that is harmful to the environment. Without regulation to limit the exploitation of resources and put caps on the amount of pollution produced, it does not matter whether the economy is free market or centrally planned by the State. One can point to the devastation in former Soviet countries and in the United States as well. Lake Baikal and Lake Eerie, for example.

Any socio-economic system needs checks and balances --regulation-- to insure that resources are used in a sustainable way and that industrial production does not release toxins into the environment.

I hate to post and run, but I have to head to work.

Socialism would actually be better than capitalism. With a socialist government you can have environmentalists that don't have to worry about earning a living wage simply because what they do is not profitable. The idea that it takes all types to make the world go round so to speak.

So the OP is bass ackwards my friends. Socialism is actually helpful for the environment, It's the idiotic dictators that often run socialist countries that don't care about the environment enough to make the necessary changes to be able to have solid standards.

a reply to: openeyeswideshut

With a socialist government you can have environmentalists that don't have to worry about earning a living wage simply because what they do is not profitable.

Environmentalism is not a profession, it is a political cause. Socialist societies do not tend to support political causes that do not support the State. In the Soviet Union, environmental groups were not permitted. People concerned about the environment would meet at "chess clubs" to discuss the environmental situation.

a reply to: DJW001

Yep.

/thread

EDIT: Can you believe I misspelled one of two words in my post? LOL.

But if we cant have socialism, communism, capitalism what can we have? what should we do? I still believe the final solution is the end of religion, unification of all languages (just one spoken language on the globe) and a far far better technology so we can build/have everything we want at low cost (if any) at a high efficiency then we will do what we like to do best in favor of mankind we will then be truly free.

a reply to: nito92

But if we cant have socialism, communism, capitalism what can we have? what should we do? I still believe the final solution is the end of religion, unification of all languages (just one spoken language on the globe) and a far far better technology so we can build/have everything we want at low cost (if any) at a high efficiency then we will do what we like to do best in favor of mankind we will then be truly free.

That's called genocide. It's been tried.

a reply to: TheTory

Genocide? how? why?

a reply to: thinline

Not socialism but materialism