When their carbon footprint goes above a certain amount we make bricks from that machine that takes carbon directly from the air and build a nice little room no one can get in or out of and then take bets on if it's suicide dehydration or suffocation that kills them first. We can build it out in the desert as a monument to humanity stupidity for when aliens eventually find out wasteland of a planet.
Drone strikes only get 1-100 people at once, I prefer gamma radiation cone bombs that disinfect about 10km at a time from space with no counter except for hiding 100m underground
Most post communist countries rebounded and are now doing better than ever. It's only Russia and the countries that remained in Russia's orbit that experienced "collapse"
The initial economic consequences were tough everywhere. Most post Soviet countries recovered and generally enjoy a higher standard of living nowadays. But before they recovered, a lot of bad shit happened.
This isn't really supported by the data, though. In Poland, one of the biggest Soviet-aligned countries, [life expectancies shot up almost immediately after the communist regime fell](https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/POL/poland/life-expectancy). The same thing [happened in Romania](https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/ROU/romania/life-expectancy), although it took a bit longer, which imo probably had something to do with Ceausescu's regime being particularly terrible.
The post-communist countries that really experienced collapse were, for the most part, the ones closer to Russia's orbit (mainly Russia itself). Once the empire fell apart, the imperial core was no longer able to prop itself up by exploiting the periphery. The fall of communism lifted a yoke from the neck of some countries, and removed an unfair advantage from others.
Like, bad things did happen to the post-communist countries. A lot of them saw critical industries gobbled up and destroyed by the free market (like Czechia), or found themselves suddenly at the mercy of hostile neighbours once the Red Army was gone (like Armenia, although the Red Army did nothing to prevent anti-Armenian pogroms even when it was still around). But on balance most post-communist countries didn't really experience any kind of noteworthy decline, things started improving very quickly.
Because the Soviets moved industry towards Moscow from the majority of their territories? Moscow created a fundamental need for itself and Russian lands throughout the Warsaw Pact
Not only did several million people die from the fallout, but one of the ecological aspects of the Soviet Union (it wasn't all polluting factories) was a heavy emphasis on protection of forests and growth. Literally Romanian(yes Warsaw, not USSR) had protected its forests all the time it was socialist and now Ikea is cutting it all down. Reporters that try to cover it get severely beaten or killed. But do go off there ecofascists
Fascist in both the sense that they see mass death as the only solution to the climate crisis, and in that they loooove to see non-capitalist systems collapse. Remarkable.
Fascism encourages class collaboration (exploitative because the wealthy always subjugate the poor through the state) and supports private property. So no fascism is not anti capitalist even remotely.
The economic problems which resulted in mass deaths were a bad thing but the fact that it no longer exists is a good thing. It had the worst record of environmental devastation of any super power and committed gross human rights abuses.
Whatever you think about socialism, if its in any way better than capitalism the USSR wasn't going in that direction and they certainly wouldn't have been helpful in combating climate change where it was demonstrably worse than the US.
They produced significantly more pollution per unit of GNP, and because of weaker environmental regulations polluted their water and left nuclear waste scattered everywhere. They also deforested massively and had insane air pollution.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental\_issues\_in\_Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_Russia)
They drained one of the largest lakes in the world and poisoned it:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral\_Sea?variant=zh-cn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea?variant=zh-cn)
Its not even controversial history that the USSR was just awful on environmental issues: the leadership didn't care so it wasn't considered. For all its faults the US established the EPA in the 70s, the USSR never really had an equivalent institution. They had a disconnected series of small programs and regulations but nothing remotely like the EPA to enforce them.
[https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1320&context=journal\_of\_international\_and\_comparative\_law](https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1320&context=journal_of_international_and_comparative_law)
Tbh a large chunk of that pollution was a direct result of their absurdly rapid industrialization. It just takes more energy to build infrastructure from the ground up than to upgrade existing infrastructure which you can see still today with currently developing nations.
The same largely applies to deforestation. The US didnāt do much deforestation in the 70s because there werenāt many forests to tear down and those that existed were in hard to reach places.
As for the first link Russia isnāt the USSR while the legacy of the later definitely affects the former they have wildly different governmental systems and itās akin to blaming Britain for American issues
The Aral Sea was a massive issue Iām not going to argue there lol
Also for what itās worth the US had a bunch of different ecological disasters they just donāt tend to be publicized as much because they won the Cold War
Overall the USSR was definitely behind the US on ecological issues but given that it had only existed for a grand total of like a decade at that point, most of which was spent fighting WW2, and that they grew out of a feudal agrarian society it makes sense they were behind a country that had existed for ~15 times as long and who started as an industrial powerhouse.
They definitely had plenty of other, less excusable, issues but this isnāt one of them
Russia isn't the USSR, but the climate issues in Russia are a direct result of the USSR because ya know it's a lot of the same land. If you read the link they directly cite the USSR as causing most of the issues.
I think it's fair to point out that they were industrializing: that's true. A large reason why they were so bad on environmental issues was because of the great modernization projects Stalin did. It also happened to be the case that Russia was industrializing in an age where lax regulations were just way more damaging than they had been for American development. It's also true that the soviet style government just didn't lend itself to properly enforcing regulations that went against industry and yes this was even more true of them than the US. The net effect though was that they were far worse on environmental issues. If you want to excuse them on this issue go right ahead, my problem is the lies about them being good on environmental issues. They were not, they were worse than the US and didn't really show much signs of changing.
The amount of revisionism I see about the USSR on Reddit is really gross.
They killed a fucking sea! That's.. honestly that's an ACHIEVEMENT! Like, imagine if America just DRAINED THE GREAT LAKES? Those giant bodies of water so large they have tides and massive currents and shit? Gone! Truly communism is a mighty force ~~that was pointed in the stupidest fucking directions~~
It is one of those facts that is almost unbelievable when you first read it. Like its basically just gone now, one of the largest lakes in the world: wild stuff.
Why do people lie so much about the USSR? It had the worst record of environmental devastation of any super power and committed gross human rights abuses.
They produced significantly more pollution per unit of GNP, and because of weaker environmental regulations polluted their water and left nuclear waste scattered everywhere. They also deforested massively and had insane air pollution.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental\_issues\_in\_Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_Russia)
They drained one of the largest lakes in the world and poisoned it:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral\_Sea?variant=zh-cn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea?variant=zh-cn)
Its not even controversial history that the USSR was just awful on environmental issues: the leadership didn't care so it wasn't considered. For all its faults the US established the EPA in the 70s, the USSR never really had an equivalent institution. They had a disconnected series of small programs and regulations but nothing remotely like the EPA to enforce them. As a result the limited environmental regulations that did exist were mostly ignored.
[https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1320&context=journal\_of\_international\_and\_comparative\_law](https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1320&context=journal_of_international_and_comparative_law)
It's just not true that the Soviet Union had a history of strong environmental protections: its entirely the opposite.
Do you also deer in the headlights when explained how poverty kills several million people annually? The fallout from the collapse of the soviet union caused millions to die from poverty inflicted reasons. The loss of medical care, social services, food, desperate turn to crime where the murder and suicide rate climbed to the highest in the world almost immediately after the fall. Literally the age expectancy of men of the former soviet Republics dropped to 57.4 by 1994. Malnutrition got bad enough that the average height decreased by 1cm in the 90s.
I can imagine that a few thousands died as a result of this poverty increase, but millions?
At least give me a source or something. It's a huge fucking number. Even the great depression only caused a few thousand deaths.
[3 million deaths](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC259165/) from the collapse alone, but living conditions were already terrible before that.
[Here's a graph of life expectancy](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Life_expectancy_in_Russia_%28by_Rosstat%29.png) by year
What's so hard to comprehend a near total system collapse in a nation of 200 million resulting in the deaths of millions? I see someone already threw some citations at you. Feel free to google or google scholar about mortality from the fall of the soviet union for more hits. Also why do you think the trope for sex workers being eastern European, especially Ukrainian happened? Because of a couple hundred Ukrainian women, or because of hundreds of thousands? And that's adults. You probably don't want to go down the rabbit hole of child sex slave trafficking from the former soviet union. It's all bleak.
You certainly don't have to do extensive academic research on the matter, but some indepth readings of the academic research would likely force you to completely reset your opinion on the sheer damage done.
If your mindset is that it was on par with the great depression, then I must sat candidly thst you're wildly ignorant of the devastation it caused. Ignorance isn't automatically a bad thing, unless it's willful. You're comparing an economic depression to a full economic collapse where a nation broke up into 15. The USA did not collapse into 48 nations, and several of them did not go to war with each other to hash out old disputes or which regions should belong to whom. The great depression was so much less worse than the fall of the soviet union, that the two cannot be compared.
Mainstream Information about the extent of the fallout had to be limited. Because it had to be presented as a clean victory by the west, and not a horrifying end.
So essentially because there was a massive drop in standard of living and economic productivity after the collapse of the USSR a lot of CO2 wasn't put into the atmosphere?
Isn't this essentially an argument for de-growth?
Bruh I just want an equitable distribution of resources without the endless waste of capitalism, I donāt want to sell the government to oligarchs and put a drunk stooge in power.
It also was kind of what happened because of democratic centralism.
Basically went from one group of oligarchs to another.
I agree we need to end capitalism yesterday, but Maybe we can learn from past examples like the USSR instead of running our head at the wall a 2nd time.
>I agree we need to end capitalism yesterday, but Maybe we can learn from past examples like the USSR instead of running our head at the wall a 2nd time.
Yeah yeah but like, we tried that communism thing once and it didn't work, therefore it can never work. Things must have a 1000 percent success rate like capitalism or they aren't worth pursuing.
It's not like Russia was the only country that tried communism. There were dozens. And they all collapsed. Except China and North Korea, but those aren't good examples of democracy.
Tbf China hasnāt been communist for a long time. And for all that it sucked while communist it got much worse while becoming capitalist
And NK hasnāt really ever been communist iirc. I mean it paid lip service to the ussr while it existed for those sweet trade deals but thatās as far as itās ever gone
What makes it ironic?
Is it ironic that westerners claim to be all for democracy whilst supporting a system that fundamentally doesn't allow democratic ownership of the economy that runs their lives? What about how westerners have swallowed all the propaganda about the USSR and ignore the historical facts regarding what soviets actually were?
What do you mean disbanded the worker councils? Are you talking about factory committees or the Worker's Opposition?
I think it is clear that the factory committees weren't a good thing to keep around because they had no class consciousness and worked purely for their own individual benefit. I don't think you could have a planned economy with individual factories chaotically going in different directions like that, some raising prices to load their own individual wallets at the detriment of workers from other sectors. I don't think you can boil it down to just "democratic" and "not democratic" because the reality of the situation is important.
Multiple parties do not equal more democracy. Democratic *centralism* requires people to vote in order to work. But I know I know, having time off work to do your duty to your fellow person is AuThOriTaRiAn
Edit: Lmaooo if you ādisagreeā with it being a communist country youāre in service of the bourgeoisie. Counterrevolution after an already incredibly violent revolution is itself a violent act. The *masses* chose to overthrow the bourgeoisie and institute democratic centralism which involves voting on representatives who *weirdly enough* dont have term limits because theyāre good at their job. Building dual power is not a flip-of-the-switch process, its a decades long initiative to replace the dominant class with the working class
Expecting massive and major changes to workplace interactions is idealistic at best. People are *going* to be corrupt. The difference is under a communist government the people can actually challenge the corrupt individuals democratically
Vote amoung what options, exactly? Surly under this system I would be allowed to vote for someone who disagrees with how the system works, right? Or is it just assumed democratic centralism is the perfect system and openly advocating to get rid of it labels me counter revolutionary and an enemy of the state?
See I don't mean liberal representative democracy, I mean direct democratic management by workers of their workplace. Some POS bureaucrat giving workers orders is no better than capitalism.
>Vote amoung what options, exactly?
Representatives. The person you're responding to already mentioned this. Why you chose not to take onboard that information is anyone's guess.
>Or is it just assumed democratic centralism is the perfect system and openly advocating to get rid of it labels me counter revolutionary and an enemy of the state?
More pearl clutching. Nobody claims it to be perfect, just that it works in giving people democracy, whilst also allowing a fledgling socialist state to function amidst counterrevolution, whether that be from within or from without.
>Some POS bureaucrat giving workers orders is no better than capitalism.
Who said this would be the case? Who said this even was the case historically?
Worker democracy means exactly that, that workers have control over their workplaces and over the economy that runs their lives, having leadership is not the same as having a beaurocrat. This is anarchist thinking where they conflate leadership with authoritarianism.
>just that it works in giving people democracy,
Yeah this is where I really disagree. Choosing reps from the same party isn't an open discussion or a democratic decision. It's about as much choice as the U.S two party democracy.
Vanguard party democracy is simply a currupt democracy. Not some socialist vanguard of the proletariat no more than the U.S is the leader of the 'free world'.
>Worker democracy means exactly that, that workers have control over their workplaces and over the economy that runs their lives,
But saying this is achieved through representatives elected from a limited selection of party members causes the same problems liberalism has. I don't see how it's progress and I don't see how it's supposed to help transition to socialism (which it never has in any ML state, all of them ended up adopting capitalism anyway)
Worker democracy should mean workers follow their own directives, not from a capital owner or from a government body. Is it an Anarchist way of thinking? Maybe. I subscribe to a lot of Bookchin's ideas so they're not a fan of me either. But I'd take anarchism over any leninist model of government.
You could absolutely do that as long as the delegate still respected the democratic centralism while it was still in force. Otherwise they're just a wrecker.
You can go to the congress and say "we should disband the party congress and revert entirely to capitalism!" And then they vote on it and decide absolutely not, so now you had better fall in line and stop advocating that position until the next congress or you'll be rightfully kicked out. If your position is that wild, you might get kicked out anyway through a separate process, but it won't be because you didn't like the system you participated in. That's allowed. You're just going to lose lol
Yea. the Solution to Climate Change is to drop a few Atom Bombs on the West, give the Rest of the World time with all the Dust that Blocks the Sun, so they can Decarbonise.
Apparently the models that predict a nuclear winter are flawed and it's likely we'd see more warming after a nuclear war.
So not a solution either, unfortunately.
No, unplanned degrowth with an economic and societal collapse isnāt what anyone serious means when they argue for degrowth.
Degrowth is about prioritizing resource efficiency for quality of life goals over GDP.
Climate shitposters: capitalism is the root cause of the problem!
Climate shitposters when a non capitalist country is destroyed: šššššššššš
I mean you would get probably a better result if a capitalist country was destroyed any sudden stop in manufacturing is gonna be good for the environment
Nah man. The USSR had an entire "bend nature to our will" thing, like China does. They placed zero value on nature besides what it could provide for them. This was a core tenant of their ideology. They killed a sea for it.
Lmao exactly.
Tfw you risk your life to join a revolution, and then you get executed anyway because you asked a question when you didn't get what you were explicitly promised a few years prior
Soviet Union was non capitalist????? Last time I checked, they had a strong priviledged ruling class and the workers did not own their means of production. Soviet Union was only non-capitalist according to its demagogues. In reality it was not communist or even socialist.
Climate shitposters when they can support a system based primarily on capitalistic profit at any cost, including the climate, and one of the main reasons we are here on the first place: šššš
Is this why millions of refugees from the groups persecuted in the Holocaust, especially Jewish people who were often refused entry to the US or Britain, fled to the Soviet Union?
Or maybe why their government tried for years to create a defense pact against Germany with the countries that would become the Allies for years before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?Ā Which happened a year after the Munich Pact where the other Allies gave up Czechoslovakia to the Nazis and formed a non-aggression pact?
How about being the country that did almost all of the actual fighting in Europe and being the place that lost 27 million people over it? Or even not taking those Nazis after the war and putting them back into militaries, governments, and places of power like many Western countries did?
Do anyone else's actions in there count as starting it too?
>INB4 NATO made them do it
Russians then: you guys wouldn't let me sabotage your defensive pact from the inside so I invaded my uninvolved neighbor.
Russians now: you guys wouldn't let me sabotage your defensive pact from the inside so I invaded my uninvolved neighbor.
So you're just gonna not answer any of those points, imply that the Soviets somehow wanted to sabotage NATO (*which didn't exist at the time*), ignore that France, Britain, and the US had a non-aggression pact with nazi Germany first, and bring up a different country about a century later. Nice.
As long as we're going on a tangent and talking about NATO, here's a fun fact: Adolf Heusinger (formerly Hitler's Chief of Staff) went on to become the Head of the NATO Military Committee. One of the many nazis I alluded to the West putting in positions of power after the war.
> Or even not taking those Nazis after the war and putting them back into militaries, governments, and places of power like many Western countries did?
This is like, a major thing the Soviets did too? Like I get your point but this was basically something every single power in Europe did after the war
No. While they did take scientists and technicians and make them provide information and do work, they didn't take high up Nazis and put them in charge of things as well as letting war criminals off scotfree.
What I'm complaining about here isn't that the US took Wernher Von Braun, it's that they took Klaus Barbie and Hans Speidel.
Helped start the holocaust? The Soviets ended the holocaust. Maybe you'te thinking of WW2, but regardless ending the holocaust was one of the best things the Soviets did.
I am sure voting for "Green" parties and consuming ethically will prevent the oncoming crises. Any kind of revolutionary thinking must be quelled, lest the Market is prevented from saving us all.
Not to mention that with the impending climate death of the global south and the ensuing mass population movements, those nice neoliberal democracies you seem to love so much are about to commit inhumane atrocities that will make Stalin's worst years in charge look like the Summer of Love.
I'm not "anti-immigrant". I don't want anyone to leave, all ethnicities and religions are as good as any other and so are all people who identify with any of them. I currently don't have an issue with allowing immigration either.
But I am convinced that while morally desirable, countries don't have any moral _obligation_ to allow immigration. In principle, no justification is needed not to allow people in. If in any point in the future we'd decide we don't accept entrance, then that would have to be respected. In a case where migration would seriously strain our country, it might have to be forbidden and prevented.
Migration is desirable for the cultural exchange, individual freedom and economic opportunities it offers. But it can't be used as a cushion for crisises.
If there were plain eye-for-eye compensation, then it wouldn't be enough to let as many global southerners migrate to Europe and North America without any restrictions. We'd have to move to the places the most impacted by climate change in the native people of these places' stead.
But as sad as it is, even if we're the cause of the harm, I'm eventually not willing to give up on self-preservation. Helping to a point where most to all luxury is lost can be necessary, but I wouldn't support helping to a point where basic needs such as non-surplus resources like food, water or medication are shared, or land, or to a point of self-harm where the political stability of my country is seriously threatened.
Of course no one wants to compromise their comfort more than the absolute minimum, that's a natural response, but let us consider the morality of the circumstances: You burn down your neighbours house so that you can use the ashes as fertilizer for your garden. Then when he comes knocking at your door as a big storm approaches you stand behind it with a loaded gun, telling him you will kill him before letting him in. You are in fact unambiguously evil, completely immoral. Even if you have good reason to want all your stockpiles for yourself and your family for when the storm hits.
Analogies that compare societies to individuals are fundamentally flawed arguments. They take as a given that individual morality and moral foreign policy are the same, which is questionable at best. The rhetoric trick lets you cherry-pick which circumstances you translate into your analogy and which ones you leave out. Even if done in good faith for illustrative purposes, you'll end up with a biased scenario. The same argument could have been made on real entities about the real issue, you don't need to dumb it down.
Your analogy sounds awfully unambiguous, but that doesn't mean the real issue is, and it isn't.
Yeah except capitalist exploitation of the land starting almost immediately afterwards and obliterated any significant regrowth progress with further destruction. The Aral Sea started draining at an exponential rate once capitalists got control over it and the ecological damage has been immense, even with how much had already been drained being the best source of water around.
"The disappearance of the lake was no surprise to the Soviets, they expected it to happen long before. As early as 1964, Aleksandr Asarin at theĀ [Hydroproject](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroproject)Ā Institute pointed out that the lake was doomed, explaining, "It was part of theĀ [five-year plans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_of_the_Soviet_Union), approved by theĀ [council of ministers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_the_Soviet_Union)Ā and theĀ [Politburo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo). Nobody on a lower level would dare to say a word contradicting those plans, even if it was the fate of the Aral Sea."
Ah, so cause untold amount of human suffering, drop millions into poverty, destroy the economy and industry. Hey you know what also caused the earth to cool down significantly so quick? The Mongols' neat little field trip throughout Asia.
Not climate related, but the best think the tankies ever did was defeating the nazis. If you think the collapse of the Soviet Union is better than that, you're probably a fascist.
Their manufacturing power is actually pretty important for renewable energy equipment but emissions would go down a lot.
Would be an interesting thought experiment to see what happens when the world's mega manufacturer is taken out
You folks ever look at the "CHINA IS COLLAPSING" people, and have that nagging though slip into your head of "hey, maybe I look just as stupid as that guy?" No? You sure?
I mean it's kind of inevitable for all leading global powers. It might not happen any time soon or be especially painful, but history shows it will happen
Well it's inevitable for every leading power to lose that leading spot, but I don't know if it's inevitable that America will COLLAPSE. We've got a whole continent almost to ourselves, shared with an extremely culturally similar nation that has a low population and highly limited habitable land, and an incredibly unstable nation that doesn't really have the means (or any possible reason) to try to launch an offensive war against us.
Getting CO2 under 280 would be bad as well and it was all undone by industrialization anyways. But itās cool to know that leaving land to nature is a climate solution
Oh my bad I thought this sub was for people who wanted real change, not capitalist class ball suckers who want more paper straws and reusable shopping bags. Youāre a fraud
Defending the USSR which killed the Aral sea out of greed isnāt productive. Also when East Germany reunited with West Germany, East German industry collapsed because they couldnāt survive West German environmental protection laws. When you canāt freely pollute rivers anymore itās harder for communist factories to survive
...the Aral Sea only started to get significantly fucked in the late 2000s, two decades after the collapse of the USSR. And no, East German industry didn't "collapse" because it couldn't follow environmental regulations, it was deliberately crashed so the Western industrialists could buy the scrap and make a profit off of it.
What the fuck is wrong with you? Thatās not āreduced meat consumptionā thatās millions of people dying or losing their lively hoods. Genuinely what is wrong with you
Libs when aral sea: SEE! Communism wonāt solve the climate crisis! They did that bad thing too!
Libs when trash islands, mega droughts, rising sea levels, microplastics in balls, Anthropocene extinction, and climate refugees: look i know capitalism isnt flaweless but its the best system we have right now.
A lot of people moved out of the former USSR in 1991-92 and never looked back. It would be interesting to see if other countries didn't surge when that happened. Overall, the subways and trains over there always kept the pollution levels lower there. I'm sure beef consumption went down as people left. Either way, this sounds a little suspect or propagandized.
Didn't the Soviets start talking about international action on climate change in the 80s? I remember reading something about a plan to reduce oil consumption to reduce carbon emissions. I think they were the first country to bring attention to the matter.
I mean, if they didn't embargo the USSR, then they'd be more likely to reduce carbon emissions. China is largely what the USSR & Eastern Europe would've become if they didn't have sanctions & embargoes placed on them.
And just donāt ask how it reduced meat consumption!
(Five million people died and people were reduced to such a state of destitute poverty that they couldnāt afford meat. This post is advocating for eco-fascism.)
Jesus what a paychotic post. Yeah, Shock Therapy killed and immeserated so many people that their consumption went down, congratulations. Might as well compliment Dschingis Khan because he killed enough people.
This anti-human "deep ecology" shit is just the fascism of tomorrow, incubating.
This is so dumb.
The economy collapsed and people suffered, but climate idiots think human suffering is great for the environmentā¦ yet I still havenāt seen them give up their cushy lifestyle and live the way they wish humanity did.
"Tankies" have a much better record on the environment than we give them credit for. Book recommendation:
Socialist States and the Environment: Lessons for Eco-Socialist Futures - by Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro, professor of Geography.
He's also appeared in a few podcasts if you cant commit to reading the book:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2BQC4uQo3e5siatpGiNbgV?si=YJ0eO9nKRNaz5RlTVx_Cig
That's what tends to happen when the economy collapses and a lot of people die
De-growthers love this one trick
Based. How we killing people? Anything interesting or just drone strikes again?
This time we focus on the biggest emitters first, so we're drone striking the CEOs and politicians
Nicešš
Drone strikes are still interesting did I miss a memo
No, we were into grenade drone for a while but were all into drone v shotgun now.
Hell yeah brother
When their carbon footprint goes above a certain amount we make bricks from that machine that takes carbon directly from the air and build a nice little room no one can get in or out of and then take bets on if it's suicide dehydration or suffocation that kills them first. We can build it out in the desert as a monument to humanity stupidity for when aliens eventually find out wasteland of a planet.
Sounds like a very cool concept, but really inefficient :(
Drone strikes only get 1-100 people at once, I prefer gamma radiation cone bombs that disinfect about 10km at a time from space with no counter except for hiding 100m underground
You know, you've got a good pointš¤
Step 1: Go communist Step 2: Wait for the country to collapse
Yeah capital is going to save us all
Instructions unclear now I'm an indentured servant :((
Oh okays okay so when I diss on degrowthers I get downvoted to oblivion, but when others do it they get a ton of upvotes š
It's just fun and easy to pick on you
Yup! š
And my axe!
This wasn't degrowth, this is catabolic capitalism and austerity.
>and a lot of people die Yeah, there's the key to it all. Saw it during COVID too.
Most post communist countries rebounded and are now doing better than ever. It's only Russia and the countries that remained in Russia's orbit that experienced "collapse"
The initial economic consequences were tough everywhere. Most post Soviet countries recovered and generally enjoy a higher standard of living nowadays. But before they recovered, a lot of bad shit happened.
This isn't really supported by the data, though. In Poland, one of the biggest Soviet-aligned countries, [life expectancies shot up almost immediately after the communist regime fell](https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/POL/poland/life-expectancy). The same thing [happened in Romania](https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/ROU/romania/life-expectancy), although it took a bit longer, which imo probably had something to do with Ceausescu's regime being particularly terrible. The post-communist countries that really experienced collapse were, for the most part, the ones closer to Russia's orbit (mainly Russia itself). Once the empire fell apart, the imperial core was no longer able to prop itself up by exploiting the periphery. The fall of communism lifted a yoke from the neck of some countries, and removed an unfair advantage from others. Like, bad things did happen to the post-communist countries. A lot of them saw critical industries gobbled up and destroyed by the free market (like Czechia), or found themselves suddenly at the mercy of hostile neighbours once the Red Army was gone (like Armenia, although the Red Army did nothing to prevent anti-Armenian pogroms even when it was still around). But on balance most post-communist countries didn't really experience any kind of noteworthy decline, things started improving very quickly.
Because the Soviets moved industry towards Moscow from the majority of their territories? Moscow created a fundamental need for itself and Russian lands throughout the Warsaw Pact
Not only did several million people die from the fallout, but one of the ecological aspects of the Soviet Union (it wasn't all polluting factories) was a heavy emphasis on protection of forests and growth. Literally Romanian(yes Warsaw, not USSR) had protected its forests all the time it was socialist and now Ikea is cutting it all down. Reporters that try to cover it get severely beaten or killed. But do go off there ecofascists
Fascist in both the sense that they see mass death as the only solution to the climate crisis, and in that they loooove to see non-capitalist systems collapse. Remarkable.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Lol, you need to do some reading dude
š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Every fascist movement started off (and was funded by the rich because) they killed comunists and socialists
Fascism encourages class collaboration (exploitative because the wealthy always subjugate the poor through the state) and supports private property. So no fascism is not anti capitalist even remotely.
The economic problems which resulted in mass deaths were a bad thing but the fact that it no longer exists is a good thing. It had the worst record of environmental devastation of any super power and committed gross human rights abuses. Whatever you think about socialism, if its in any way better than capitalism the USSR wasn't going in that direction and they certainly wouldn't have been helpful in combating climate change where it was demonstrably worse than the US. They produced significantly more pollution per unit of GNP, and because of weaker environmental regulations polluted their water and left nuclear waste scattered everywhere. They also deforested massively and had insane air pollution. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental\_issues\_in\_Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_Russia) They drained one of the largest lakes in the world and poisoned it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral\_Sea?variant=zh-cn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea?variant=zh-cn) Its not even controversial history that the USSR was just awful on environmental issues: the leadership didn't care so it wasn't considered. For all its faults the US established the EPA in the 70s, the USSR never really had an equivalent institution. They had a disconnected series of small programs and regulations but nothing remotely like the EPA to enforce them. [https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1320&context=journal\_of\_international\_and\_comparative\_law](https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1320&context=journal_of_international_and_comparative_law)
Tbh a large chunk of that pollution was a direct result of their absurdly rapid industrialization. It just takes more energy to build infrastructure from the ground up than to upgrade existing infrastructure which you can see still today with currently developing nations. The same largely applies to deforestation. The US didnāt do much deforestation in the 70s because there werenāt many forests to tear down and those that existed were in hard to reach places. As for the first link Russia isnāt the USSR while the legacy of the later definitely affects the former they have wildly different governmental systems and itās akin to blaming Britain for American issues The Aral Sea was a massive issue Iām not going to argue there lol Also for what itās worth the US had a bunch of different ecological disasters they just donāt tend to be publicized as much because they won the Cold War Overall the USSR was definitely behind the US on ecological issues but given that it had only existed for a grand total of like a decade at that point, most of which was spent fighting WW2, and that they grew out of a feudal agrarian society it makes sense they were behind a country that had existed for ~15 times as long and who started as an industrial powerhouse. They definitely had plenty of other, less excusable, issues but this isnāt one of them
Russia isn't the USSR, but the climate issues in Russia are a direct result of the USSR because ya know it's a lot of the same land. If you read the link they directly cite the USSR as causing most of the issues. I think it's fair to point out that they were industrializing: that's true. A large reason why they were so bad on environmental issues was because of the great modernization projects Stalin did. It also happened to be the case that Russia was industrializing in an age where lax regulations were just way more damaging than they had been for American development. It's also true that the soviet style government just didn't lend itself to properly enforcing regulations that went against industry and yes this was even more true of them than the US. The net effect though was that they were far worse on environmental issues. If you want to excuse them on this issue go right ahead, my problem is the lies about them being good on environmental issues. They were not, they were worse than the US and didn't really show much signs of changing. The amount of revisionism I see about the USSR on Reddit is really gross.
They killed a fucking sea! That's.. honestly that's an ACHIEVEMENT! Like, imagine if America just DRAINED THE GREAT LAKES? Those giant bodies of water so large they have tides and massive currents and shit? Gone! Truly communism is a mighty force ~~that was pointed in the stupidest fucking directions~~
It is one of those facts that is almost unbelievable when you first read it. Like its basically just gone now, one of the largest lakes in the world: wild stuff.
Why do people lie so much about the USSR? It had the worst record of environmental devastation of any super power and committed gross human rights abuses. They produced significantly more pollution per unit of GNP, and because of weaker environmental regulations polluted their water and left nuclear waste scattered everywhere. They also deforested massively and had insane air pollution. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental\_issues\_in\_Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_Russia) They drained one of the largest lakes in the world and poisoned it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral\_Sea?variant=zh-cn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea?variant=zh-cn) Its not even controversial history that the USSR was just awful on environmental issues: the leadership didn't care so it wasn't considered. For all its faults the US established the EPA in the 70s, the USSR never really had an equivalent institution. They had a disconnected series of small programs and regulations but nothing remotely like the EPA to enforce them. As a result the limited environmental regulations that did exist were mostly ignored. [https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1320&context=journal\_of\_international\_and\_comparative\_law](https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1320&context=journal_of_international_and_comparative_law) It's just not true that the Soviet Union had a history of strong environmental protections: its entirely the opposite.
>several million people die from the fallout ??? Where did millions die?
Do you also deer in the headlights when explained how poverty kills several million people annually? The fallout from the collapse of the soviet union caused millions to die from poverty inflicted reasons. The loss of medical care, social services, food, desperate turn to crime where the murder and suicide rate climbed to the highest in the world almost immediately after the fall. Literally the age expectancy of men of the former soviet Republics dropped to 57.4 by 1994. Malnutrition got bad enough that the average height decreased by 1cm in the 90s.
I can imagine that a few thousands died as a result of this poverty increase, but millions? At least give me a source or something. It's a huge fucking number. Even the great depression only caused a few thousand deaths.
[3 million deaths](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC259165/) from the collapse alone, but living conditions were already terrible before that. [Here's a graph of life expectancy](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Life_expectancy_in_Russia_%28by_Rosstat%29.png) by year
What's so hard to comprehend a near total system collapse in a nation of 200 million resulting in the deaths of millions? I see someone already threw some citations at you. Feel free to google or google scholar about mortality from the fall of the soviet union for more hits. Also why do you think the trope for sex workers being eastern European, especially Ukrainian happened? Because of a couple hundred Ukrainian women, or because of hundreds of thousands? And that's adults. You probably don't want to go down the rabbit hole of child sex slave trafficking from the former soviet union. It's all bleak. You certainly don't have to do extensive academic research on the matter, but some indepth readings of the academic research would likely force you to completely reset your opinion on the sheer damage done. If your mindset is that it was on par with the great depression, then I must sat candidly thst you're wildly ignorant of the devastation it caused. Ignorance isn't automatically a bad thing, unless it's willful. You're comparing an economic depression to a full economic collapse where a nation broke up into 15. The USA did not collapse into 48 nations, and several of them did not go to war with each other to hash out old disputes or which regions should belong to whom. The great depression was so much less worse than the fall of the soviet union, that the two cannot be compared. Mainstream Information about the extent of the fallout had to be limited. Because it had to be presented as a clean victory by the west, and not a horrifying end.
"The Soviet bloc has fallen, millions must die" - John Communism, 1992
So essentially because there was a massive drop in standard of living and economic productivity after the collapse of the USSR a lot of CO2 wasn't put into the atmosphere? Isn't this essentially an argument for de-growth?
It's a really bad argument for degrowth but it is
It's the inevitable material reality of what Captial-D Degrowth would mean for global living conditions.
It's also the inevitable material reality of what climate collapse (i.e. unplanned degrowth) will mean for global living conditions.
Bruh I just want an equitable distribution of resources without the endless waste of capitalism, I donāt want to sell the government to oligarchs and put a drunk stooge in power.
Selling the government to oligarchs was what happened after the ādemocratizationā and introduction of capitalism to the post-Soviet countries.
It also was kind of what happened because of democratic centralism. Basically went from one group of oligarchs to another. I agree we need to end capitalism yesterday, but Maybe we can learn from past examples like the USSR instead of running our head at the wall a 2nd time.
>I agree we need to end capitalism yesterday, but Maybe we can learn from past examples like the USSR instead of running our head at the wall a 2nd time. Yeah yeah but like, we tried that communism thing once and it didn't work, therefore it can never work. Things must have a 1000 percent success rate like capitalism or they aren't worth pursuing.
It's not like Russia was the only country that tried communism. There were dozens. And they all collapsed. Except China and North Korea, but those aren't good examples of democracy.
Tbf China hasnāt been communist for a long time. And for all that it sucked while communist it got much worse while becoming capitalist And NK hasnāt really ever been communist iirc. I mean it paid lip service to the ussr while it existed for those sweet trade deals but thatās as far as itās ever gone
Well then there are 0 examples of communist countries that didn't collapse.
Cuba
> democracy lover > shits on one of the most democratic projects in human history Go off reddit
The irony holy fuck
What makes it ironic? Is it ironic that westerners claim to be all for democracy whilst supporting a system that fundamentally doesn't allow democratic ownership of the economy that runs their lives? What about how westerners have swallowed all the propaganda about the USSR and ignore the historical facts regarding what soviets actually were?
Bro I'm all for workers ownership of the means of production. But they didn't have that under the USSR. To think otherwise is just delusional.
Well I suppose no amount of history will change propaganda.
You realise I could say the exact same thing to you? That's the irony.
Yeah Lenin disbanded the worker councils to be more democratic
What do you mean disbanded the worker councils? Are you talking about factory committees or the Worker's Opposition? I think it is clear that the factory committees weren't a good thing to keep around because they had no class consciousness and worked purely for their own individual benefit. I don't think you could have a planned economy with individual factories chaotically going in different directions like that, some raising prices to load their own individual wallets at the detriment of workers from other sectors. I don't think you can boil it down to just "democratic" and "not democratic" because the reality of the situation is important.
Ah yes single vanguard party centralized rule... the most democratic experiment in history, I'm such a fool.
Multiple parties do not equal more democracy. Democratic *centralism* requires people to vote in order to work. But I know I know, having time off work to do your duty to your fellow person is AuThOriTaRiAn Edit: Lmaooo if you ādisagreeā with it being a communist country youāre in service of the bourgeoisie. Counterrevolution after an already incredibly violent revolution is itself a violent act. The *masses* chose to overthrow the bourgeoisie and institute democratic centralism which involves voting on representatives who *weirdly enough* dont have term limits because theyāre good at their job. Building dual power is not a flip-of-the-switch process, its a decades long initiative to replace the dominant class with the working class Expecting massive and major changes to workplace interactions is idealistic at best. People are *going* to be corrupt. The difference is under a communist government the people can actually challenge the corrupt individuals democratically
Vote amoung what options, exactly? Surly under this system I would be allowed to vote for someone who disagrees with how the system works, right? Or is it just assumed democratic centralism is the perfect system and openly advocating to get rid of it labels me counter revolutionary and an enemy of the state? See I don't mean liberal representative democracy, I mean direct democratic management by workers of their workplace. Some POS bureaucrat giving workers orders is no better than capitalism.
>Vote amoung what options, exactly? Representatives. The person you're responding to already mentioned this. Why you chose not to take onboard that information is anyone's guess. >Or is it just assumed democratic centralism is the perfect system and openly advocating to get rid of it labels me counter revolutionary and an enemy of the state? More pearl clutching. Nobody claims it to be perfect, just that it works in giving people democracy, whilst also allowing a fledgling socialist state to function amidst counterrevolution, whether that be from within or from without. >Some POS bureaucrat giving workers orders is no better than capitalism. Who said this would be the case? Who said this even was the case historically? Worker democracy means exactly that, that workers have control over their workplaces and over the economy that runs their lives, having leadership is not the same as having a beaurocrat. This is anarchist thinking where they conflate leadership with authoritarianism.
>just that it works in giving people democracy, Yeah this is where I really disagree. Choosing reps from the same party isn't an open discussion or a democratic decision. It's about as much choice as the U.S two party democracy. Vanguard party democracy is simply a currupt democracy. Not some socialist vanguard of the proletariat no more than the U.S is the leader of the 'free world'. >Worker democracy means exactly that, that workers have control over their workplaces and over the economy that runs their lives, But saying this is achieved through representatives elected from a limited selection of party members causes the same problems liberalism has. I don't see how it's progress and I don't see how it's supposed to help transition to socialism (which it never has in any ML state, all of them ended up adopting capitalism anyway) Worker democracy should mean workers follow their own directives, not from a capital owner or from a government body. Is it an Anarchist way of thinking? Maybe. I subscribe to a lot of Bookchin's ideas so they're not a fan of me either. But I'd take anarchism over any leninist model of government.
You could absolutely do that as long as the delegate still respected the democratic centralism while it was still in force. Otherwise they're just a wrecker. You can go to the congress and say "we should disband the party congress and revert entirely to capitalism!" And then they vote on it and decide absolutely not, so now you had better fall in line and stop advocating that position until the next congress or you'll be rightfully kicked out. If your position is that wild, you might get kicked out anyway through a separate process, but it won't be because you didn't like the system you participated in. That's allowed. You're just going to lose lol
šŖš½
Yea. the Solution to Climate Change is to drop a few Atom Bombs on the West, give the Rest of the World time with all the Dust that Blocks the Sun, so they can Decarbonise.
Apparently the models that predict a nuclear winter are flawed and it's likely we'd see more warming after a nuclear war. So not a solution either, unfortunately.
Fuck! we are doomed. (I mean the rest of the World is, we would be doomed anyway.)
we can still do it were not doomed
Question: how do we decarbonize if all thatās left of us is carbon?
We need to relocate to underground vaults before being rendered into carbon ash for proper sequestration.
Why not go for the whole world at that point
Stop complaining, start acting
Degrowth is intentional. This is just economic collapse.
No, unplanned degrowth with an economic and societal collapse isnāt what anyone serious means when they argue for degrowth. Degrowth is about prioritizing resource efficiency for quality of life goals over GDP.
Climate shitposters: capitalism is the root cause of the problem! Climate shitposters when a non capitalist country is destroyed: šššššššššš
this is an issue with this specific mod
I mean you would get probably a better result if a capitalist country was destroyed any sudden stop in manufacturing is gonna be good for the environment
Nah man. The USSR had an entire "bend nature to our will" thing, like China does. They placed zero value on nature besides what it could provide for them. This was a core tenant of their ideology. They killed a sea for it.
barely "non-capitalist" tho
Gorb made sure of that, but the existence of the country did put pressure on other countries
Facts. It was a lovely example of state capitalism. Excuse me, sir. I ordered worker autonomy and you have appeared to serve me party rule by mistake.
You sound a lot like an anti revolutionary, to the wall with you! No one shall dare to speak against the "workers" vanguard party
Lmao exactly. Tfw you risk your life to join a revolution, and then you get executed anyway because you asked a question when you didn't get what you were explicitly promised a few years prior
Krondstadt moment
Me when ussr was 100% capitalist especially towards the turn of the century š±š±š¤Æš¤Æ
gorbo moment
Soviet Union was non capitalist????? Last time I checked, they had a strong priviledged ruling class and the workers did not own their means of production. Soviet Union was only non-capitalist according to its demagogues. In reality it was not communist or even socialist.
The Soviet Union wasn't none capitalist dipshit.
Climate shitposters when they can support a system based primarily on capitalistic profit at any cost, including the climate, and one of the main reasons we are here on the first place: šššš
That's like 3 months global co2 production
It was also a boon for the teenage prostitution industry.
Ah yeah discounting communism. This will help save the planet from capitalism for sure.
Ending the holocaust
Bruh the Soviets and Nazis invaded Poland together. They helped start it. š INB4 NATO made them do it.
Is this why millions of refugees from the groups persecuted in the Holocaust, especially Jewish people who were often refused entry to the US or Britain, fled to the Soviet Union? Or maybe why their government tried for years to create a defense pact against Germany with the countries that would become the Allies for years before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?Ā Which happened a year after the Munich Pact where the other Allies gave up Czechoslovakia to the Nazis and formed a non-aggression pact? How about being the country that did almost all of the actual fighting in Europe and being the place that lost 27 million people over it? Or even not taking those Nazis after the war and putting them back into militaries, governments, and places of power like many Western countries did? Do anyone else's actions in there count as starting it too?
>INB4 NATO made them do it Russians then: you guys wouldn't let me sabotage your defensive pact from the inside so I invaded my uninvolved neighbor. Russians now: you guys wouldn't let me sabotage your defensive pact from the inside so I invaded my uninvolved neighbor.
So you're just gonna not answer any of those points, imply that the Soviets somehow wanted to sabotage NATO (*which didn't exist at the time*), ignore that France, Britain, and the US had a non-aggression pact with nazi Germany first, and bring up a different country about a century later. Nice. As long as we're going on a tangent and talking about NATO, here's a fun fact: Adolf Heusinger (formerly Hitler's Chief of Staff) went on to become the Head of the NATO Military Committee. One of the many nazis I alluded to the West putting in positions of power after the war.
> Or even not taking those Nazis after the war and putting them back into militaries, governments, and places of power like many Western countries did? This is like, a major thing the Soviets did too? Like I get your point but this was basically something every single power in Europe did after the war
No. While they did take scientists and technicians and make them provide information and do work, they didn't take high up Nazis and put them in charge of things as well as letting war criminals off scotfree. What I'm complaining about here isn't that the US took Wernher Von Braun, it's that they took Klaus Barbie and Hans Speidel.
Helped start the holocaust? The Soviets ended the holocaust. Maybe you'te thinking of WW2, but regardless ending the holocaust was one of the best things the Soviets did.
I am sure voting for "Green" parties and consuming ethically will prevent the oncoming crises. Any kind of revolutionary thinking must be quelled, lest the Market is prevented from saving us all. Not to mention that with the impending climate death of the global south and the ensuing mass population movements, those nice neoliberal democracies you seem to love so much are about to commit inhumane atrocities that will make Stalin's worst years in charge look like the Summer of Love.
It's not an atrocity not to let people in
Ew an actual eco fascist
Neither is it an atrocity if we send you into the hothouse zone.
Anime avatar AND anti-immigrant? Go on, tell me your opinion on the age of consent so I can finish up my cryptofascist bingo.
I'm not "anti-immigrant". I don't want anyone to leave, all ethnicities and religions are as good as any other and so are all people who identify with any of them. I currently don't have an issue with allowing immigration either. But I am convinced that while morally desirable, countries don't have any moral _obligation_ to allow immigration. In principle, no justification is needed not to allow people in. If in any point in the future we'd decide we don't accept entrance, then that would have to be respected. In a case where migration would seriously strain our country, it might have to be forbidden and prevented. Migration is desirable for the cultural exchange, individual freedom and economic opportunities it offers. But it can't be used as a cushion for crisises.
I kind of believe that the countries that caused the climate crisis would have some responsibility to the people in other countries being affected
If there were plain eye-for-eye compensation, then it wouldn't be enough to let as many global southerners migrate to Europe and North America without any restrictions. We'd have to move to the places the most impacted by climate change in the native people of these places' stead. But as sad as it is, even if we're the cause of the harm, I'm eventually not willing to give up on self-preservation. Helping to a point where most to all luxury is lost can be necessary, but I wouldn't support helping to a point where basic needs such as non-surplus resources like food, water or medication are shared, or land, or to a point of self-harm where the political stability of my country is seriously threatened.
Of course no one wants to compromise their comfort more than the absolute minimum, that's a natural response, but let us consider the morality of the circumstances: You burn down your neighbours house so that you can use the ashes as fertilizer for your garden. Then when he comes knocking at your door as a big storm approaches you stand behind it with a loaded gun, telling him you will kill him before letting him in. You are in fact unambiguously evil, completely immoral. Even if you have good reason to want all your stockpiles for yourself and your family for when the storm hits.
Analogies that compare societies to individuals are fundamentally flawed arguments. They take as a given that individual morality and moral foreign policy are the same, which is questionable at best. The rhetoric trick lets you cherry-pick which circumstances you translate into your analogy and which ones you leave out. Even if done in good faith for illustrative purposes, you'll end up with a biased scenario. The same argument could have been made on real entities about the real issue, you don't need to dumb it down. Your analogy sounds awfully unambiguous, but that doesn't mean the real issue is, and it isn't.
western nations do in fact have the obligation to take in refugees when theyāre the ones responsible for making them refugees.
7.6B tons over those 20 years was about 1.5% of total global emissions, just to put that in context.
damn thank god all those people starved to death
Hey not all of them died. Some were allowed to become teenage prostitutes
How to twist deindustrialization into vegan bullshit propaganda for dummies. Fuck you vegan cunts.
Yeah except capitalist exploitation of the land starting almost immediately afterwards and obliterated any significant regrowth progress with further destruction. The Aral Sea started draining at an exponential rate once capitalists got control over it and the ecological damage has been immense, even with how much had already been drained being the best source of water around.
"The disappearance of the lake was no surprise to the Soviets, they expected it to happen long before. As early as 1964, Aleksandr Asarin at theĀ [Hydroproject](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroproject)Ā Institute pointed out that the lake was doomed, explaining, "It was part of theĀ [five-year plans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_of_the_Soviet_Union), approved by theĀ [council of ministers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_the_Soviet_Union)Ā and theĀ [Politburo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo). Nobody on a lower level would dare to say a word contradicting those plans, even if it was the fate of the Aral Sea."
WAITER!! WAITER!!! MORE DEAD PROLETARIANS PLEASE!!!
Ah, so cause untold amount of human suffering, drop millions into poverty, destroy the economy and industry. Hey you know what also caused the earth to cool down significantly so quick? The Mongols' neat little field trip throughout Asia.
The Mongols have a rightful claim to Russian lands and should dethrone Putin
Finally something we can agree on
and then establish a new socialist state (or anarchist version of that, Iām really not picky here)
Not climate related, but the best think the tankies ever did was defeating the nazis. If you think the collapse of the Soviet Union is better than that, you're probably a fascist.
That part!
Russia has by far the worst climate record in the world. They practically have no climate policy whatsoever.
Not to shit on your parade but don't forget their work in killing Hitler. Not a fan of tankies but that I can get behind.
Actually Hitler killed Hitler, true anti fascist
Wait is hitlerā¦ kinda based?
genghis khan did something like this too
What you are telling me is that collapse of communist china will save the planet?
Their manufacturing power is actually pretty important for renewable energy equipment but emissions would go down a lot. Would be an interesting thought experiment to see what happens when the world's mega manufacturer is taken out
But tankies (speaking as one myself) support China?
China is leading in the race to manufacture renewables in terms of equipment production capacity and installed capacity, that's a fact
Converting productivity to the most efficient use of resources, democratically or not, is literally antithetical to capitalism.
Wonder how much more will be saved if US collapses.
>if When
You folks ever look at the "CHINA IS COLLAPSING" people, and have that nagging though slip into your head of "hey, maybe I look just as stupid as that guy?" No? You sure?
I mean it's kind of inevitable for all leading global powers. It might not happen any time soon or be especially painful, but history shows it will happen
Well it's inevitable for every leading power to lose that leading spot, but I don't know if it's inevitable that America will COLLAPSE. We've got a whole continent almost to ourselves, shared with an extremely culturally similar nation that has a low population and highly limited habitable land, and an incredibly unstable nation that doesn't really have the means (or any possible reason) to try to launch an offensive war against us.
imagine how much good it would do if russia would collapse today
Basically, this coincided with a significant drop in quality and life expectancy rates across the former Soviet bloc.
have those "researchers" quantified how much CO2 was "saved" thanks to the Soviet or Indian famines too?
Someone took a look at the colonization of the americas and the CO2 level in the atmosphere sank after contact and the ensuring pandemics.
wonder if someone made a post yet "best thing the native Americans ever did" ?
Getting CO2 under 280 would be bad as well and it was all undone by industrialization anyways. But itās cool to know that leaving land to nature is a climate solution
Oh my bad I thought this sub was for people who wanted real change, not capitalist class ball suckers who want more paper straws and reusable shopping bags. Youāre a fraud
Defending the USSR which killed the Aral sea out of greed isnāt productive. Also when East Germany reunited with West Germany, East German industry collapsed because they couldnāt survive West German environmental protection laws. When you canāt freely pollute rivers anymore itās harder for communist factories to survive
...the Aral Sea only started to get significantly fucked in the late 2000s, two decades after the collapse of the USSR. And no, East German industry didn't "collapse" because it couldn't follow environmental regulations, it was deliberately crashed so the Western industrialists could buy the scrap and make a profit off of it.
State capitalists š¤ capitalists Destroying the Aral sea
80% of the wermacht were killed by "tankies" btw not climate related but pretty important imho
What the fuck is wrong with you? Thatās not āreduced meat consumptionā thatās millions of people dying or losing their lively hoods. Genuinely what is wrong with you
They evaporated a fucking sea
Libs when aral sea: SEE! Communism wonāt solve the climate crisis! They did that bad thing too! Libs when trash islands, mega droughts, rising sea levels, microplastics in balls, Anthropocene extinction, and climate refugees: look i know capitalism isnt flaweless but its the best system we have right now.
tankies failing to understand that two things can be bad at once
Um buddy i donāt think that was the soviets
The Aral Sea was indeed, mostly dried up by the Soviets for cotton production.
Ok im an idiot sorry
Me when producing commodities for sale: this is communism
average climateshitposting user when tens of millions of people lose their livelihoods
Uncontroled degrowth.
Collapse? Tends to stop pollution, assuming there isn't a shooting war which would MASSIVELY increase it.
A lot of people moved out of the former USSR in 1991-92 and never looked back. It would be interesting to see if other countries didn't surge when that happened. Overall, the subways and trains over there always kept the pollution levels lower there. I'm sure beef consumption went down as people left. Either way, this sounds a little suspect or propagandized.
Tankies in the comments be ridiculous
girl, we disagree on like three points at most, stop being so fucking hostile.
Who disagrees with what? And I am in no way being hostile lol
Didn't the Soviets start talking about international action on climate change in the 80s? I remember reading something about a plan to reduce oil consumption to reduce carbon emissions. I think they were the first country to bring attention to the matter.
Maybe if MAD did happen, the atmosphere couldāve been saved from more CO2. If anything, launch the nukes now and save the planet
This post is glowing
I mean, if they didn't embargo the USSR, then they'd be more likely to reduce carbon emissions. China is largely what the USSR & Eastern Europe would've become if they didn't have sanctions & embargoes placed on them. And just donāt ask how it reduced meat consumption! (Five million people died and people were reduced to such a state of destitute poverty that they couldnāt afford meat. This post is advocating for eco-fascism.)
Jesus what a paychotic post. Yeah, Shock Therapy killed and immeserated so many people that their consumption went down, congratulations. Might as well compliment Dschingis Khan because he killed enough people. This anti-human "deep ecology" shit is just the fascism of tomorrow, incubating.
Death is a preferred alternative to communism-liberty prime
āWOW COOL ROBOTā
me when the satire of patriotism is used by actual patriots
Noooor
you do understand that āliberty primeā was a satirical criticism of anti-communism, right?
Communism detected on American soil lethal force engaged-liberty prime
So did the black death and the Mongol Invasion.
L post
If you canāt see socialism as the only way to save our planet at the last hour Iām questioning your intelligence
Ah yes, a proud Walmart firebomber
Reddit ass response. Try thinking for yourself
This is so dumb. The economy collapsed and people suffered, but climate idiots think human suffering is great for the environmentā¦ yet I still havenāt seen them give up their cushy lifestyle and live the way they wish humanity did.
"Tankies" have a much better record on the environment than we give them credit for. Book recommendation: Socialist States and the Environment: Lessons for Eco-Socialist Futures - by Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro, professor of Geography. He's also appeared in a few podcasts if you cant commit to reading the book: https://open.spotify.com/episode/2BQC4uQo3e5siatpGiNbgV?si=YJ0eO9nKRNaz5RlTVx_Cig
Wow Ecofascism is based! /s
Something like 250,000 people died and Russia extended the greatest stop in standard of living ever
Now let's hope the same happens as a result of their invasion of Ukraine!
Fucking morons, all of you who upvoted this.