Could socialism help the environment? How did past socialist nations handle environmental problems? Will we all be vegetarian? Discuss.

Seriously though, how did socialism handle environment? I hear liberals screeching about whaling for no reason and making rivers empty

Attached: usa-kelp-forest.jpg (1389x1010, 638.77K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Nuclear Eco-Stalinism

Green politics are inherently reactionary. Tech will fix everything

Reminder also that most oxygen recycling is done by sea algae which will die off if the ocean acidifies enough.

Attached: 5800-004-27B13A65.jpg (500x287, 20.45K)

REALLY makes you think

Yes, assuming you crank down massively on consumption
that said, environment's completely fugged and it's a few decades too late to stop that

Tech will be able to produce oxygen in the future. We don’t need trees or other parts of the environment. Communism will abolish them

Stop being retarded user

Attached: b32.jpg (155x240, 9.31K)

That's just liberal utopianism. We have no idea whether tech will fix anything in a reasonable timespan, nor whether these technical solutions are in any way desirable over more traditional ones.
People tend to like trees. Having no plants or animals in their surroundings makes them depressed.

The environment is already pretty fucked, but it'll get more fucked if we keep going.
The important fact is that socialism would enable us to manage the human costs of environmental collapse. Free market capitalism will kill off anyone who can't afford a ticket for Elon Musk's mars mission.

Attached: free real estate.jpg (723x362, 34.97K)

Not an argument.

This is reactionary idealism. Plants and animals are on the way out, the dialectic flows that way

high i q tier:

Protecting nature and abandoning it are both reactionary positions. Both fail to acknowledge that what previously "nature" is a now technology for us to control.

Modern life is only possible through the consumption of non renewable resources so eventually we will have to live sustainably, whether that is by choice or due to a lack of resources no one knows. The only question is if we use technology to destroy ourselves first

Attached: f41480f31388d85b0fe3cb6d4ef3e531e7147c18e3d749604ef8c94aea2558fc.jpg (800x533, 140.64K)

This lmao

nuclear resource wars by the 2030s comrade

Attached: leftypol during the begining of the intergalatic communist revolution.mp4 (330x360, 1.07M)

The “traditional solution” is to end Industrial Civilization. A synthetic society is preferable over Primitivism.

Reminder that every change in the mode of production was because of an environmental collapse

none of those were occurring on the present scale and potential impact, the closest would be bronze age collapse and even that was more regional
but you are right that climate collapse will by necessity destroy the current mode of production, it's just a question of whether we survive it and if so, whether we can get back on our feet afterwards

Well considering we live in global capitalism (very few countries qualify as semi-feudal semi-colonial anymore), it only makes sense that global ecological collapse would force a global change in the mode of production.

Supply chains and globalization can be reversed in large resource rich nations. (US, China, Russia) or groups of nations like the EU. Capitalism is global, but their is no global capitalist order.

stop being retarded user

Attached: 7da75d96e9a918381e1ddc0a0a8bdaaf4dd8e40283729c8fad89f12eb74cc5aa.jpg (1440x810, 195.81K)

I don't think we've ever had what you would call a global capitalist order, since the onset of imperialism there's always been imperial competition, even in the post cold war era.

Due to socialism's inherent anti-consumerist nature that already is a massive positive impact on nature. Add to this the fact that planned economies make it easier to regulate and alleviate ecological issues, something that is very notable in the USSR in terms of hunting/poaching, since they allowed regulated limited hunting as well as strict guarding of the wilderness to prevent poaching and thus lowered biodiversity.
No. While hydroponics and Aquaculture is efficient in providing alternative food soruces with fewer resources, meat and organic products like milk and eggs are very useful to our biology. Almost NO proper cake, home-made or not, is created without eggs and milk for example. What should be expected is simply more efficient production.

Unsurprising, see pic 2
In the 1960s, Soviet researchers predicted the complete evaporation of the body of water, and a river used to irrigate farmland had the excess water siphoned into the lake. This was, however, expensive, and during the privitisations (and subsequent economic catastrophe) of the 1980s, the plan was abandoned. After Kazakhstan seceded, ultra-intensive cotton farming practices and infrastructure mismanagement (most water running through irrigation to the farms evaporated on the way there) accelerated the shrinkage. Most of the former Aral Sea is a desert.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1244x524 978.58 KB, 316.45K)

Stalin literally had entire forests planted to replace the trees he had cut down or where lost in WW-2. Today these forests are not being restored even as Russian oligarchs make millions selling the timber to China.

Environment matters, and an utterly unnatural environment affects humans. There is a reason why many people who are tired of the city move into the country-side or will plant flowers or tend to a garden or have pets. They are not utilitarian but they serve the purpose of providing something that people enjoy. For example my parrot. He's no factory worker or some other material object, but having him sitting in my room or flying about my house and making noise provides me happiness and I love to care for him as best I can, and he shows affection for it back. Your bullshit ideological crap simply does not hold.

A similar question was brought up in the Soviet Film The Communist, about a communist in the days right after the Revolution when the war was coming to a close and the building of electrical stations and literary education was spreading across Russia. One of the dilemmas of the film is that the communist main character falls in love with a married woman, and he asks his senior "What does marx say about loving another woman, what is right?" And he is answered that there is NOTHING said about his situation, simply because it has nothing to do with dialectics, it is simply a personal thing between 2 people, however the senior also states that generally it is not good to simply steal away someone elses wife, which he says from his own human perspective.

What caused the Aril Sea to evaporate (redirecting river water to farms) started under the USSR and just continued when the USSR collapsed. That said it was a good thing. Producing food is more important that saving a few animals.

No, it was rapidly accelerated under capitalism, and they were already drafting plans to stop it under socialism.

You are so utterly retarded I want to introduce your face to a nice heavy BOOK.

1) The redirecting of rivers to irrigation in farms WAS done but was regulated, especially after the 60s, allowing for irrigation to continue along with the giant lake and its ecosystem.
2) The Aral Sea is important as a resource of water for people, a source of fish and a place where people could rest in vacation.
3) Saving a few animals is putting it mildly considering the sheer SIZE of the ecosystem that has been wiped out. This is like if Lake Erie dried out, the ecological effects through the rest of the Mid-Western and Southern areas of the United States as well as a section of lower Canada would be devastated. Ecological areas are interconnected and rely on one another. Remove one and you can devastate another.

Thus the removal of the Aral sea was a ecological disaster and economic disaster, all caused by capitalist de-regulation.

Read what is posted carefully Trot instead of trying to post some thinly veiled anti-soviet jab and then trying to justify yourself when caught.

You do realize the shoreline started retreating in the 70s.

Which was being dealt with until liberalist decadence struck in the form of Gorby and his goons, followed up by Yeltsin, Yakovlev and the rest of the scum, drought/desertification is harder to reverse than to cause.

Distruction of the eco system happens regardless of economic system.
We need socialism AND the destruction of industrialized society

Attached: Djn4Ri6XoAEeZlF.jpg large.jpg (1124x628, 77.99K)

Sure, if you want to be invaded by Vietnam.



The question really is if we can take over control of the environment.

If you actually think industrialized society can be destroyed you're a moron.

Alternatively the dialectic is moving towards human extinction and there’s nothing necessitating our continued existence

Plant trees everywhere and make our country green in the interest of future generations. Deng Xiaoping

Tell me why this is wrong?

Attached: NorthKoreaarchitecture.jpg (980x552, 223.45K)

The great irony is that in the US, within living memory, the straws were metal or paper, single-use plastic didn't exist and virtually every scrap of discarded metal was recycled.

On the one hand it's an admirable sentiment but on the other a tree farm is not the same thing as a forest and you have to be careful not to get distracted. I'm all for more green but not when it's algal bloom or the color of what comes out of my lungs during a coughing fit after making the mistake of inhaling deeply in Beijing.

the name of that jpeg is incredibly misleading, my god.

Also the Spanish Flu helped save the Soviet Union, if it didn't break out, a total war would begin in the early 20s and the Great Depression and Nazism would never have happened, Weimar Germany, America and Japan would form anticomintern pact with Locarno.

инфа 100%


Lake Karachi
Lake Baikal
Aral Sea

Basically ☭TANKIE☭s are retards who can't into ecology

Attached: D72bhupWwAAV3jX.jpeg (1532x2048, 327.85K)

Top fucking kek

I don't mean you couldn't destroy the system as an absolute statement of truth, I mean that in order to destroy it you'd need to engage in massive amounts of industrial production on your own which already is going to put you into a tools race against others in the system.



To shitposters

Socialism can fix the planet because we won't have to produce so much shit, and we can better monitor the production of the shit we do produced. Computers help a lot in central planning, like, fuck loads.


Also, we'll probably have to get over a multicentury hump of bad weather and shitty crops.

Tech will not fix everything, just like millions of people have died of cancer before we've found cures or ways of suppressing it's effects, so will people die on a much more massive scale from the effects of climate change in the near future.
You are literally parroting the conservative boomer position of "God won't let this happen" without presenting any sort of evidence or an actual argument.
This isn't some total apocalypse scenario, it's just that life becomes considerably harder, it's conditions harsher and at the same time much physical beauty, which gives human life meaningful and deep enjoyment, is lost.

This is a retarded position held by people who think they are tech gurus because they run lunix and use the command line on a shitty pc. People in real tech are fucking worried, and you should be to.

Can anyone here reccomended books that suggest alternative methods of agricultural production? Are there any books that detail the models of production that the ussr used? It can be both pre and post environmental awareness, I just need to read more about the actual models, I can integrate sustainability requirements afterwards. Have people ever grown food for an industrial society without markets?

do you have any proof of this though


Reminder that socialism is the only thing that's going to save our species' sorry ass from extinction this century

What method would actually destroy industrialism that doesn't involve the participation of those already in control of industry or the creation of counter-industry?

you can even reduce it further to energy/resource production and consumption and in order to compete it's a race to a bottom
a society/civilization that uses the cheapest and most efficient energy source(fossil fuel) is going to beat the shit out of one that doesn't

We have all the tech needed to unfuck the atmosphere before it's too late but nobody will do it because muh profits.

Australian rabidly hardcore eco-socialists will use the prisoners to plant millions trees to turn the outback into green and ban any types of power except nuclear. What a pity because that will never happen.

sounds good to me

It depends on what situation. Some animals aren’t native and are harmful to the environment so they might need to be culled and give it to the people. We damaged the environment too much so we need to restore it back to the healthy again.

Then stop paying the taxes.

There is a strong Marxian argument for a strong central authority that would is a sort of leftist ecosystem management. The problem with a leftist outlook is that it doesnt deal with polluting, just like how Capitalism doesnt deal with kings and despots. Both are not really equipped to deal with these issues, because under their respective political outlooks these wouldnt be consequences of natural action. Exportation of Carbon is a purely capitalistic issue.

They would even ban solar and windmills?.

Yes they wanted it to be banned because they wanted to accelerate the nuclear technology development to make Australia a socialist superpower.


It really isn't. The simplest method is asimple drip system that literally collects carbon out of the atmosphere by using water. The carbon itself is useless until processed and all that requires setting up new infrastructure, factories etc. that would bring negative profits in the short-run. Capitalists don't care about the long-run because the instability of the market makes money worth fluctuate to much for them to ever consider long-term investments.