• mcgravier
    link
    fedilink
    -251 year ago

    If you want to imply that communism is more friendly to the environment, I’ll have to disappoint you.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_Russia

    Many of the issues have been attributed to policies that were made during the early Soviet Union, at a time when many officials felt that pollution control was an unnecessary hindrance to economic development and industrialization, and, even though numerous attempts were made by the Soviet government to alleviate the situation in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, the problems were not completely solved.[1] By the 1990s, 40% of Russia’s territory began demonstrating symptoms of significant ecological stress, largely due to a diverse number of environmental issues, including deforestation, energy irresponsibility, pollution, and nuclear waste.[2]

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      121 year ago

      That was not my point. More than 50% of total greenhouse gas emissions happened after the USSR dissolved.

      Apart from that: As an anarcho-communist, I don’t consider the USSR to be socialist (worker’s control over the means of production). And even the USSR never called itself “communist” (a classless, moneyless society by the standard “to each according to their need, from each according to their ability”), since that would have meant that the state would have had to be dissolved. The USSR was state capitalist (total state control over the means of production) and therefore still adherent to the “growth at all costs” paradime.

      There is more thanone communist ideology. Murray Bookchin developed a ecologically stable form of communism starting in the1950s.

      Seriously: Fuck the USSR

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        No you misunderstand the USSR did achieve communism: If it didn’t achieve statelessness, why doesn’t it still exist? Checkmate, comrade.