• Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 months ago

      Capitalism drives pollution because the cheapest path to profit is also destructive towards the environment, and legislating against the profit motive is difficult because the state serves Capitalists.

      Socialism fixes this by valuing needs and uses over profit.

      The Soviet Union failed to properly implement environmental protections because climate science wasn’t as developed and the Soviet Union was a developing country.

      • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        While yes, a socialist country would have other priorities but let’s also not forget that the USSR wasn’t socialist. Before Stalin it had the potential to be sometime in the future but that got sidelined at best.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          The USSR was a Worker State, it was Socialist. It was a highly flawed Socialist State in many ways, but it was still fundamentally Socialist.

          On what grounds do you believe the USSR was not Socialist? We can certainly debate effectiveness, but I haven’t seen a genuine Marxist argument for why the USSR wasn’t Socialist.

          • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            Workers had no control over the means of production. Those were owned by the party which was just another form of bourgeoisie rule. A good example of that was the insane amount of nepotism in the party leading to appointment of friends and relatives with no competency who went against the wishes of the workers. Trofim Lysenko for example was appointed by Stalin and his policies forced farmers to basically kill their crops leading to mass famines in the USSR and those that didn’t were declared fascists, traitors or something along those lines.

            It’s not socialist if the workers lack any control.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              It was a planned economy by the workers, expressed through the party. This is not bourgeois rule, that’s vibes-based analysis. The Workers fundamentally had control, even if flawed.

              It was corrupt, correct. That doesn’t make it Capitalist.

              • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                5 months ago

                Planned by the party, not the workers. Workers lacked any voice in the party, it was no different than any other authoritarian rule in that aspect.

                I grew up in the USSR, nearby farms were controlled by a kolhoos which was headed by someone important in the party, the farmers had no say in what was to be produced or to who their produce goes to, only the party decided that. The same control existed for every other industry, party gave the orders with no input from a single worker, commonly even going against workers in their orders.

                I would love a system where workers actually controlled the means of production but the USSR was not that.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  The state was run by the party, and the party was run and elected by the workers. The concept of a dominant political party is in line with Marxism, and is not indicative of Capitalism.

                  The workers elected the people making decisions. They did not vote on the decisions themselves, correct. The USSR was not a direct democracy. Direct Democracy is not a requiremeny for Socialism.

                  I think it would do you good to revisit Marxism and better understand what a Class actually is. Yes, the USSR was flawed, but it was also Socialism. The former Soviet States are now Capitalist at best, and fascist at worst, and function completely differently from when they were in the USSR.

                  Additionally, unless you’re extremely old, you experienced the period of liberalization before collapse, not the peak of Socialism.

                  • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    I never said a direct democracy is needed but worker control of the means of production is, in the USSR workers did not have that. Pretty much all meaningful elections in the USSR were held within the party by the party, not by the workers. The party was a bourgeoisie ruling class with vastly different class interests which is why the USSR was not socialist.