5 ms·

Historically, the capitalist countries have been much less-polluted ('cleaner') and more environmentally friendly in general than the communist countries. With

by nickff 5y ago

Historically, the capitalist countries have been much less-polluted ('cleaner') and more environmentally friendly in general than the communist countries. With respect to 'socialist' countries, the correlations depend on exactly how you define socialism, and which countries you include/exclude.

ashtonkem 5y ago
I think there’s enough contradictory information here to make clear ideological statements like that indefensible. The late USSR was far dirtier than America of the same period, yes, but neither can hold a candle to pre-EPA America or late industrial revolution England. Heck, London had a coal smoke smog in 1952 that killed 10-12K people in a week. Regardless, I find this discussion to be an unwelcome diversion. The USSR is dead, and even most communists don’t want that specific state back. The reality is that today in America we regularly let companies privatize their profits and shift their costs onto all of society. We don’t need to nationalize industry to fix that, and as you correctly point out that might not be sufficient, but we do need to regulate this.
- nickff 5y ago
  North Korea and Cuba have been disasters, and I think you're wrong about the USSR being cleaner than pre-EPA USA. China has been a mess throughout its self-professed communist history as well; you may dispute its degree of communism, but it certainly has more nationalized industries (of the sort proposed in parent comments) than the USA or any other 'capitalist' country.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    I see you’re more interested in hashing out the communism vs. capitalism thing. I am not. Frankly it’s the internet’s most overwrought and under productive argument. All I want to see is industries pay according to the impact that they have on society. This isn’t an inherently socialistic idea, but it would require a change in the way that we currently conceive of capitalism[0]. 0 - Economists generally think that removing these externalities are good for the market. But this runs contrary to the anti-regulation attitude currently in vogue.
    - nickff 5y ago
      >"I see you’re more interested in hashing out the communism vs. capitalism thing." No, I just think that most of your previous post was wrong. edit: I see that you added to your post: >"0 - Economists generally think that removing these externalities are good for the market. But this runs contrary to the anti-regulation attitude currently in vogue. " Where have regulations decreased over the medium to long-term (5+ years)? I can't think of any (stable) country which has acted in an anti-regulatory way; do you have any specific examples?
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        > Where have regulations decreased over the medium to long-term (5+ years)? I can't think of any (stable) country which has acted in an anti-regulatory way; do you have any specific examples? This is genuinely quite baffling to me. Ignoring the fact that de-regulation has been an explicit plank of the GOP for my entire life, the US deregulated a ton of stuff since the Reagan era. Airlines, trucking, labor, and the financial industry all saw significant cuts to their regulatory rules. Anti-trust laws have been re-interpreted to be less aggressive[0] leading to more mergers, and regulation of various services have been weakened[1]. Environmental regulations have been a bit of a back-and-forth with executive orders changing things often, but at the state level de-regulation and willful non-enforcement is the norm in some areas. Texas is generally the go-to here, with willful non-enforcement of EPA rules around fracking and the (disastrous) deregulation of the energy market. Trump in particular made industrial de-regulation a goal, and tried to de-regulate a ton of stuff and lock out his successors from changing the rules back. https://climate.law.columbia.edu/climate-deregulation-tracker https://climate.law.columbia.edu/climate-deregulation-tracke... The UK is now finally starting up their deregulatory processes again, now that they're no longer restrained by the EU. They've been greenlighting new pesticides for use, eliminating EU rules around used plastic exports, and allowing private water companies to dump their untreated sewage into the ocean. Personally I'd keep my eye on them the most for de-regulation, because their anti-regulation party has effectively no electable opposition, leaving them entirely without political restraint. Although given the current status of their import woes, I think they might end up not being sufficiently stable for your requirements. 0 - Anti-trust used to be about whether or not a company was "anti-competitive". The new rules determine whether or not a monopoly reduces consumer prices. Whether or not this is good or not, this is effectively a deregulation. 1 - I'm specifically thinking of the end of the fairness doctrine and the deregulation of ISPs.
nicoffeine 5y ago
Totally and completely false. The UK in 1930 was much more polluted than the USSR and China at that time. Making that argument today is possible if you ignore moving practically all manufacturing to a country that happens to be communist. There would be far less pollution in China if they weren't making all of our stuff. It's actually a good example of how unchecked capitalism is always looking for new ways to externalize costs, regardless of the consequences for whoever is left holding the bag. Also, any country that builds infrastructure with taxes and regulates industry is socialist, including the US. The difference is usually that "capitalist" countries have safety net for corporations and the wealthy, while "socialist" countries have safety nets for everyone.
- nickff 5y ago
  Well, China wasn't communist in 1930; that aside, I think it's tough to get an accurate idea of one specific time in the past, as such I think we're better off trying to understand the general situation over the situation over a longer-term in the USSR. Here is a quote from a self-professed socialist on a socialist website about the environmental situation there: >"On this basis, let me agree with Adam that the damage done to the environment by the Soviet regime and its successor doesn’t remotely bear comparison with that in the West. It was, and remains, catastrophically worse. Particular countries elsewhere, especially in the developing world, have suffered one or another ecological disaster, sometimes of mind-bending dimensions. The USSR managed something in just about every sector of heavy industry to match the worst of them." https://socialist-alliance.org/alliance-voices/ecological-disaster-was-ussr-0 https://socialist-alliance.org/alliance-voices/ecological-di...
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >The UK in 1930 was much more polluted than the USSR and China at that time. And how industrialized were the USSR and China in 1930? When a larger part of your economy is agrarian you're going to be incapable of polluting the shit out of everything to the same extent as more industrialized nations.
istorical 5y ago
The alternative to 'capitalism as we see it today' is not socialism. It's capitalism without regulatory capture and functional regulatory bodies that have teeth and use them.

by nickff 5y ago

ashtonkem 5y ago

I think there’s enough contradictory information here to make clear ideological statements like that indefensible. The late USSR was far dirtier than America of the same period, yes, but neither can hold a candle to pre-EPA America or late industrial revolution England. Heck, London had a coal smoke smog in 1952 that killed 10-12K people in a week. Regardless, I find this discussion to be an unwelcome diversion. The USSR is dead, and even most communists don’t want that specific state back. The reality is that today in America we regularly let companies privatize their profits and shift their costs onto all of society. We don’t need to nationalize industry to fix that, and as you correctly point out that might not be sufficient, but we do need to regulate this.

nickff 5y ago
North Korea and Cuba have been disasters, and I think you're wrong about the USSR being cleaner than pre-EPA USA. China has been a mess throughout its self-professed communist history as well; you may dispute its degree of communism, but it certainly has more nationalized industries (of the sort proposed in parent comments) than the USA or any other 'capitalist' country.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  I see you’re more interested in hashing out the communism vs. capitalism thing. I am not. Frankly it’s the internet’s most overwrought and under productive argument. All I want to see is industries pay according to the impact that they have on society. This isn’t an inherently socialistic idea, but it would require a change in the way that we currently conceive of capitalism[0]. 0 - Economists generally think that removing these externalities are good for the market. But this runs contrary to the anti-regulation attitude currently in vogue.
  - nickff 5y ago
    >"I see you’re more interested in hashing out the communism vs. capitalism thing." No, I just think that most of your previous post was wrong. edit: I see that you added to your post: >"0 - Economists generally think that removing these externalities are good for the market. But this runs contrary to the anti-regulation attitude currently in vogue. " Where have regulations decreased over the medium to long-term (5+ years)? I can't think of any (stable) country which has acted in an anti-regulatory way; do you have any specific examples?
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      > Where have regulations decreased over the medium to long-term (5+ years)? I can't think of any (stable) country which has acted in an anti-regulatory way; do you have any specific examples? This is genuinely quite baffling to me. Ignoring the fact that de-regulation has been an explicit plank of the GOP for my entire life, the US deregulated a ton of stuff since the Reagan era. Airlines, trucking, labor, and the financial industry all saw significant cuts to their regulatory rules. Anti-trust laws have been re-interpreted to be less aggressive[0] leading to more mergers, and regulation of various services have been weakened[1]. Environmental regulations have been a bit of a back-and-forth with executive orders changing things often, but at the state level de-regulation and willful non-enforcement is the norm in some areas. Texas is generally the go-to here, with willful non-enforcement of EPA rules around fracking and the (disastrous) deregulation of the energy market. Trump in particular made industrial de-regulation a goal, and tried to de-regulate a ton of stuff and lock out his successors from changing the rules back. https://climate.law.columbia.edu/climate-deregulation-tracker https://climate.law.columbia.edu/climate-deregulation-tracke... The UK is now finally starting up their deregulatory processes again, now that they're no longer restrained by the EU. They've been greenlighting new pesticides for use, eliminating EU rules around used plastic exports, and allowing private water companies to dump their untreated sewage into the ocean. Personally I'd keep my eye on them the most for de-regulation, because their anti-regulation party has effectively no electable opposition, leaving them entirely without political restraint. Although given the current status of their import woes, I think they might end up not being sufficiently stable for your requirements. 0 - Anti-trust used to be about whether or not a company was "anti-competitive". The new rules determine whether or not a monopoly reduces consumer prices. Whether or not this is good or not, this is effectively a deregulation. 1 - I'm specifically thinking of the end of the fairness doctrine and the deregulation of ISPs.

nicoffeine 5y ago

Totally and completely false. The UK in 1930 was much more polluted than the USSR and China at that time. Making that argument today is possible if you ignore moving practically all manufacturing to a country that happens to be communist. There would be far less pollution in China if they weren't making all of our stuff. It's actually a good example of how unchecked capitalism is always looking for new ways to externalize costs, regardless of the consequences for whoever is left holding the bag. Also, any country that builds infrastructure with taxes and regulates industry is socialist, including the US. The difference is usually that "capitalist" countries have safety net for corporations and the wealthy, while "socialist" countries have safety nets for everyone.

nickff 5y ago
Well, China wasn't communist in 1930; that aside, I think it's tough to get an accurate idea of one specific time in the past, as such I think we're better off trying to understand the general situation over the situation over a longer-term in the USSR. Here is a quote from a self-professed socialist on a socialist website about the environmental situation there: >"On this basis, let me agree with Adam that the damage done to the environment by the Soviet regime and its successor doesn’t remotely bear comparison with that in the West. It was, and remains, catastrophically worse. Particular countries elsewhere, especially in the developing world, have suffered one or another ecological disaster, sometimes of mind-bending dimensions. The USSR managed something in just about every sector of heavy industry to match the worst of them." https://socialist-alliance.org/alliance-voices/ecological-disaster-was-ussr-0 https://socialist-alliance.org/alliance-voices/ecological-di...
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>The UK in 1930 was much more polluted than the USSR and China at that time. And how industrialized were the USSR and China in 1930? When a larger part of your economy is agrarian you're going to be incapable of polluting the shit out of everything to the same extent as more industrialized nations.

istorical 5y ago

The alternative to 'capitalism as we see it today' is not socialism. It's capitalism without regulatory capture and functional regulatory bodies that have teeth and use them.