Talk:Communism and the Environment

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is interesting if you consider that the discussion is not well discussed, it is just used to prove how wrong the connection is or may be. I would suggest reading George Orwell's "Animal Farm" then tell me what you think of Communism and Environmentalism

Well I've read this a couple of time and find it hard to follow. Its not really a user friendly illustration to go with the 'straw man' page. Nor can it be edited since it is intended to faithfully reproduce the exchange from somewhere else on the web. Unless someone else has a better idea on the best way of handling this I'm for deleting it. -- bob

Delete it Zardoz 11:50, 13 May 2004 (EDT)

I'm with you guys. Delete it. This guy seems hell-bent on reprinting his Google groups posts. Plautus Satire 11:31, 2 Jun 2004 (EDT)

[1] Hmmm...

Are you stalking me or something? Plautus Satire 20:58, 2 Jun 2004 (EDT)

I only decided to look up your name after your nasty comment above. My point in posting the link was simply to point out that apparently lots of other people have problems with you as well. But I guess that's an inherent problem in any democracy. Lots of trolls. You can relax though Plautus, I haven't the slightest desire to "stalk you", though I notice that you decided to do an Arin on me. Whatever floats your boat I guess. Adios.

Communism and the Environment

As I am the author of the original Google Groups piece I've had the link saved on my computer for awhile. I'm new here but just deleting it seems a bit harsh. I searched SourceWatch and found nothing touching on this subject and as it took some work to research I think that it is a valuable reference, esp. as anti-environmentalists often draw false comparisons between communism and environmentalists (an example ). If not this article than can I suggest that SourceWatch put together another?

I have edited my page and hope that it is more acceptable. If not I bow to the judgement of the editors.

I think you should start by explaining in the head of the entry what speculative link there is between communism and the environment, and what sorts of characters use this argument, then go find examples of a red herring debate that illustrates the point instead of starting with an indiosynchratic argument from a news thread. Plautus Satire 23:17, 31 May 2004 (EDT)

I thought that's what I did. First the quotes from rightwing commentators, then the red herring arguement. The news thread is an example of a man-in-the-street debate. I think it fits nicely. Besides it took a lot of research to put that info together. :-l

I haven't looked at the page histories, so I don't know what it looked like originally, but obviously there is a lot of Googling represented there, I think you should take that news thread out or put it at the end and label those external links so they're not just one [X] after another. Plautus Satire 23:29, 31 May 2004 (EDT)

Confusing change IMO.

Compromise and some changes. Perhaps the title should be changed.

Hey Plautus, you just removed the guts of the article. Do you mind?

Not really, if you want to reprint newsgroup articles you author yourself maybe you could start a free blog or maybe put it in your User:Talk page. Or you could try registering so you could have a talk page with a user ID instead of just an IP. Plautus Satire 02:40, 2 Jun 2004 (EDT)

What the heck does it matter if I reprint a 2 year old bit of debate from a Google Group? In the first place I am directly demonstrating the fact that the man-in-the-street has adopted the argument from the "talking heads". What's more that research is central to the article and it is pertinent. Your insinuation is that I am seeking publicity, yet no one, short of hiring a PI, has the vaguest idea of who I am, so publicity would not help me in the least now would it? If you have a legitimate objection or if you don't agree with what I've written for evidential reasons then state it and we can discuss it or take it up with Sheldon or Bob whose judgement I will accept rather than simply eviscerating my work. Fair enough? I've already included several of you suggestions and am open to reason. If however you have some other personal objection that you're not stating to my article then work on and write your own - I promise not to vandalize it.

If you feel you must change it, please consult with Sheldon or Bob first Okay? Thanks.

In the interests of compromise I have deleted the parts that appear to be the sticking point leaving only a small link at the bottom where a person could go to for context if desired. But why start over when the info is right there? Anyway it looks better now.

The reason I've been using an IP rather than registering is because I only recently discovered SourceWatch, thought it was a great idea and perhaps I might submit a few things. If I knew I'd be here this long I might have taken a username. On the other hand since submitting I have been getting viruses in my in box. I don't know if it's related but I think I'll quit for now.

Since you haven't provided an email address, I don't see how it is possible that viruses in your in box could be related to your SourceWatch contributions. As for this article, I think the topic is interesting, but I would like to see further work on it. I don't think there's any need to refer back to the original newsgroup context in which these comments originated. I think it would be better to rewrite it, omitting mention of that context (except perhaps in a footnote), thereby making the article stand better on its own.--Sheldon Rampton 14:26, 2 Jun 2004 (EDT)

I have hopefully removed the offending section, leaving a footnote as suggested, while leaving in the pertinent information. Besides that I reverted back to my last version since the one which came after was nonsensical IMO. Sorry about the further edits to my other article even though I intended and still intend to retire.


Sorry Sheldon, I missed this. I don't want to be paranoid. You may be right about the viruses but I do believe that it is possible with just an IP address. If true I'd think others here might have similar experiences. If not maybe it's something else. It happened to me one time before on Quark Soup right after relating a particular poster's ties to oil. Multiple copies a day, usually a one line note saying that so and so was sorry that they couldn't deliver my "message". Always came with an executable. Definitely virus. I finally had to get a new email addy to stop it. Anyway you've got a great site here. I am glad to have contributed to it. :-)


It is quite possible, even likely, that "viruses in your in box could be related to your SourceWatch contributions". There are numerous people in the habit of trying to attach email addresses or even real people's names to IP addresses, and though they usually get it wrong, sometimes they may get it right. There are echo chambers all over the mediawiki world that basically repeat rumours and lies, which are taken as gospel if certain people (such as site editors) buy into them. This is becoming more of a problem all the time, especially as anonymous proxy use becomes more common, and it's easier and easier to run these.

On the substance of the article itself, it is true that the prior theories (Limits to Growth era, and over-focus on "renewables" as sources, and MAC theory) are all obsolete and advised some extremely bad policies sometimes.

But the modern pathway analysis used/advised by EPA, the natures services analysis by Costanza and others that led to the theory of natural capital now in use at the UN and in some G8 nations (like Canada), and the theory of Natural Capitalism, are all sound both ecologically and economically.

It is now the neo-conservatives and their alliances with oil imperialism that are advocating a large centralized bureaucracy with military control of the world's fossil fuel resources - so who are the actual big-government commies? John Edwards called George W. Bush a "pinko" using this argument, and it actually should stick, as Bush has presided over a huge transfer of wealth and the buildup of huge debt on the public that has gone to his friends.

Basically, Ayn Rand's bad guys look more like Republicans than like the Greens.

Communism and the environment

Obviously, a democracy allows citizens to elect leaders who will serve their interests and therefore plays the more major role. However, it seems silly that one would be against a free market and for a democracy. Are they not one in the same? By purchasing goods, you are voting for the company to deliver more of those goods (i.e. serve your interests).

I do not know of too many citizens who are for a "free market" that does not serve the interests of their community. This includes markets that limit competition or do not follow laws pertaining to the environment. A mistake that people often make is to villify a corporation for polluting when it is the democratically elected government that lets them get away with it. Another point is that even socialist countries have corrupt businesses that pay off corrupt government officials.

The same arguments against free markets could easily be said against free democracies if you change the wording.